Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biopsy standards for detection of prostate cancer

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The widespread use of measurement of prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer screening has led to a dramatic increase in the number of transrectal biopsies. Although transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is the gold standard in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, the strategies for initial and repeat biopsies remain controversial. Over the past decade numerous biopsy protocols have been developed. Several protocols have been established that increase the number of cores by combining sextant and lateral biopsies to increase the cancer detection rate. We review the current methods of prostate biopsies, the indication to perform an initial and repeat biopsy, the impact of prostate volume on the number of cores taken, and the morbidity of the procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Djavan B, Susani M, Bursa B, Basharkhah A, Simak R, Marberger M (1999) Predictability and significance of multifocal prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen. Tech Urol 5(3):139–142

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Stamey TA (1995) Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology 45(1):2–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparen P, Norlen BJ, Busch C (1997) The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 50:562–566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K (2000) The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol 163(1):163–166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Karakiewicz PI, Aprikian AG, Meshref AW, Bazinet M (1996) Computer-assisted comparative analysis of four-sector and six section biopsies of the prostate. Urology 48:747–750

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Karakiewicz PI, Hanley JA, Bazinet M (1998) Three-dimensional computer-assisted analysis of sector biopsy of the prostate. Urology 52:208–212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ravery V, Billeband T, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L, Hermien JF, Moulinver F, Blanc E, Delmas V (1999) Diagnostic value of the systematic TRUS-guided prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 35:298–303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Eskew AL, Bare RL, McCullongh DL (1997) Systematic 5-region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 157:199–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bauer JJ, Zeng J, Weir J, Zhang W, Sesterhern IA, Connely RR, Mun SK, Mone JW (1999) Three-dimensional computer-simulated prostate models: lateral prostate biopsies increase the detection rate of prostate cancer. Urology 53:961–967

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chang JJ, Shinohara K, Bhargava V, Presti JC Jr (1998) Prospective evaluation of lateral biopsies of the peripheral zone for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 160:2111–2114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J (2006) Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 175:1605–1612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Djavan B, Zlotta AR, Ekane S, Remzi M, Kramer G, Roumeguère T, Etemad M, Ghawidel K, Schulman CC, Marberger M (2000) Is on set of sextant biopsies enough to rule out prostate cancer? Influence of transition and total prostate volumes on prostate cancer yield. Eur Urol 38(2):218–224

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Uzzo RG, Wei JT, Waldbaum RS, Perlmutter AP, Byrne JC, Vaughan ED (1995) The influence of prostatic size on cancer detection. Urology 46:831–836

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen ME, Troncoso P, Johnston DA, Tang K, Babaian RJ (1997) Optimization of prostate biopsy strategy using computer based analysis. J Urol 158:2168–2175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Djavan B, Zlotta AR, Remzi M, Bursa B, Hruby S, Wolfram R, Schulman CC, Marberger M (1999) Total and transition zone prostate volume and age: how do they affect the utility of PSA based diagnostic parameters for early prostate cancer detection? Urology 54(5):846–852

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Djavan B, Zlotta AR, Byttebier G, Shariat S, Omar M, Schulman CC, Marberger M (1998) Prostate specific antigen density of the TZ for early detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 160(2):411–418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Zlotta AR, Djavan B, Marberger M, Schulmann CC (1997) Prostate specific antigen density of the transition zone: a new effective parameter for prostate cancer prediction. J Urol 157:1315–1321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Levine MA, Ittman M, Melamed J, Lepor H (1998) Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 159:471–476

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Letran JL, Meyer GE, Loberiza FR, Brawer MK (1998) The effect of prostate volume on the yield of needle biopsy. J Urol 160(5):1718–1721

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Vashi AR, Wojno KJ, Gillespie B, Oesterling JE (1998) A model for the number of cores per prostate biopsy based on patient age and prostate gland volume. J Urol 159:920–924

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, et al (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142:71–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K (2000) The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol 163:163–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Philip J, Hanchanale V, Foster CS, Javle P (2006) Importance of peripheral biopsies in maximising the detection of early prostate cancer in repeat 12-core biopsy protocols. BJU Int 98:559–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bazinet M, Karakiewicz PI, Aprikian AG, et al (1996) Value of systematic TZ biopsies in the early detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 155:605–606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Terris MK, Pham TQ, Issa MM, Kabalin JN (1997) Routine TZ and seminal vesicle biopsies in all patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound giuded prostate biopsies are not indicated. J Urol 157:204–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sauvageot J, Carter HB (1997) Use of repeat sextant and transistion zone biopsies for assessing extent of prostate cancer. J Urol 158:1886–1890

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Brossner C, Winterholer A, Roehlich M, Dlouhy-Schütz E, Serra V, Sonnleithner M, Grubmüller KH, Pummer K, Schuster E (2003) Distribution of prostate carcinoma foci within the peripheral zone: analysis of 8,062 prostate biopsy cores. World J Urol 21(3):163–166

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Orozco R, O’Dowd GJ, Kunnel B, et al (1998) Observations on pathology trends in 62,537 protstate biopsies obtained from urology private practices in the United States. Urology 51:186–195

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bostwick DG, Qian J, Frankel K (1995) The incidence of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in needle biopsies. J Urol 154:1791–1794

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Green J, Feneley MR, Young M, Peeling B, Kirby R, Parkinson C (1996) The prevalence of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) in biopsies from hospital practice and pilot screening: clinical implications. J Urol 155(Suppl):A1260

    Google Scholar 

  31. Raviv G, Janssen TH, Zlotta AR, Descamps F, Verhest A, Schulman CC (1996) Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: influence of clinical and pathological data on the detection of invasive prostate cancer, in patients initially diagnosed on previous needle biopsy. J Urol 156:1050–1055

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Raviv G, Zlotta AR, Janssen TH, Descamps F, Verhest A, Schulman CC (1996) Does prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density enhance the detection of prostate cancer in patients initially diagnosed to have prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia? Cancer 77:2103–2108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Zlotta AR, Raviv G, Schulman CC (1996) Clinical prognostic criteria for later diagnosis of prostate carcinoma in patients with initial isolated prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Eur Urol 30:249–255

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Meyer F, Tetu B, Bairati I, Lacombe L, Fradet Y (2006) Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in TURP specimens and subsequent prostate cancer. Can J Urol 13:3255–3260

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Djavan B, Zlotta AR, Remzi M, Ghawidel K, Basharkhah A, Schulman CC, Marberger M (2000) Optimal predictors of prostate cancer in repeat prostate biopsy: a prospective study in 1,051 men. J Urol 163(4):1144–1148

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Irani J, Fournier F, Bon D, et al (1997) Patient tolerance of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Br J Urol 79(4):608–610

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Clements R, Aideyan OU, Griffiths GJ, et al (1993) Side effects and patient acceptability of transrectal biopsy of the prostate. Clin Radiol 47:125–126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Adamakis I, Mitropoulos D, Haritopoulos K, Alamanis C, Stravodimos K, Giannopoulos A (2004) Pain during transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy: a randomized prospective trial comparing periprostatic infiltration with lidocaine with the intrarectal instillation of lidocaine-prilocain cream. World J Urol 22(4):281–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rodriguez LV, Terris MK (1998) Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: a prospective study and review of the literature. J Urol 160:2115–2120

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford CL, et al (1990) Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. J Urol 143:1146–1152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Crawford ED, Haynes AL Jr, Story MW, et al (1982) Prevention of urinary tract infection and sepsis following transrectal prostatic biopsy. J Urol 127:449–451

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Davison P, Malament M (1971) Urinary contamination as a result of transrectal biopsy of the prostate. J Urol 105:545–546

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Fawcett DP, Eykyn S, Bultidue MI (1975) Urinary tract infection following transrectal biopsy of the prostate. Br J Urol 47:679–681

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ashby EC, Rees M, Dowding CH (1978) Prophylaxis against systemic infection after transrectal biopsy for suspected prostatic carcinoma. Br Med J 2:1263–1264

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Thompson PM, Talbot RW, Packham DA, et al (1980) Transrectal biopsy of the prostate and bacteremia. Br J Surg 67:127–128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Thompson PM, Prior JP, Williams JP, et al (1982) The problem of infection after prostatic biopsy: the case for the transperineal approach. Br J Urol 54:736

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Shigemura K, Tanaka K, Yasuda M, Ishihara S, Muratani T, Deguchi T, Matsumoto T, Kamidono S, Nakano Y, Arakawa S, Fujisawa M (2005) Efficacy of 1-day prophylaxis medication with fluoroquinolone for prostate biopsy. World J Urol 23:356–360

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Sieber PR, Rommel FM, Agusta VE, et al (1997) Antibiotic prophylaxis in ultrasound guided transrectal prostate biopsy. J Urol 157:2199–2200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Wahringer Gurtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Bob Djavan & Markus Margreiter

Authors
  1. Bob Djavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Markus Margreiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bob Djavan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Djavan, B., Margreiter, M. Biopsy standards for detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol 25, 11–17 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0151-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0151-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation