Prostate Cancer Biopsy: Strategies

  • Niklas WesthoffEmail author
  • Manuel Ritter
Living reference work entry


Prostate biopsy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of prostate cancer since many decades. Technical and material advances lead to a 10- to 12-core systematic biopsy as the state of the art to detect prostate cancer in case of an elevated PSA level or suspect digital rectal examination.

Since prostate imaging modalities enable visualization of potentially malignant areas, biopsy paradigm started to change in favor of targeted biopsies for optimization of cancer detection. The implementation of the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is now known to increase detection of clinically significant cancer, improve early risk stratification, and advise patients to an adequate therapy. A variety of different fusion techniques and biopsy platforms have been developed, showing not only diagnostic but also therapeutic relevance with great future potential by integrating biopsy and focal therapy.

However, there is still a debate on the right indication to use systematic, targeted, or saturation biopsies and how to perform them. Biopsy strategies should pursue the following aims: accurate detection of clinically significant cancer, reduction of overdetection of insignificant cancer, high negative predictive value, immaculate risk assessment according to the final pathology in prostatectomy specimens, low morbidity, and clinical applicability.


  1. Ahmad S, Cao R, Varghese T, Bidaut L, Nabi G. Transrectal quantitative shear wave elastography in the detection and characterisation of prostate cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(9):3280–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. American Urological Association (AUA). Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline [Internet]. 2013 [updated 2013 Apr; cited 2017 Jan 25]. Available from:
  3. Astraldi A. Diagnosis of cancer of the prostate: biopsy by rectal route. Urol Cutan Rev. 1937;41:421.Google Scholar
  4. Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):787–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and Transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):149–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Barringer BS. Carcinoma of the prostate. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1922;34:168–76.Google Scholar
  7. Barzell WE, Melamed MR. Appropriate patient selection in the focal treatment of prostate cancer: the role of transperineal 3-dimensional pathologic mapping of the prostate – a 4-year experience. Urology. 2007;70(6 Suppl):27–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SA, Gardiner RA. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144(8):1784–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, Maroni PD, Werahera PN, Baer CA, et al. Clinical-pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate. 2013;73(7):778–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cussans A, Somani BK, Basarab A, Dudderidge T. The role of targeted prophylactic antimicrobial therapy prior to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy in reducing infection rates: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2016;117(5):725–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, Cherfan M, Porcher R, Hoznek A, et al. Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology. 2003;61(6):1181–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, Beuvon F, Bouazza N, Flam T, et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol. 2013;189(2):493–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie e.V. (DGU). Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms [Internet]. 201. [updated 2016 Dec; cited 2017 Jan 25]. Available from:
  14. Distler F, Radtke JP, Kesch C, Roethke M, Schlemmer HP, Roth W, et al. Value of MRI/ultrasound fusion in primary biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Der Urologe Ausg A. 2016;55(2):146–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenberg ML, Cowan JE, Carroll PR, Shinohara K. The adjunctive use of power Doppler imaging in the preoperative assessment of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2010;105(9):1237–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. European Association of Urology (EAU). Guidelines on prostate cancer [Internet]. 2016 [updated 2016 Mar; cited 2017 Jan 25]. Available from:
  17. Feliciano J, Teper E, Ferrandino M, Macchia RJ, Blank W, Grunberger I, et al. The incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections after prostate biopsy – are fluoroquinolones still effective prophylaxis? J Urol. 2008;179(3):952–5. discussion 5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Lieu P, Dorey FJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016;122(6):884–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Grabski B, Baeurle L, Loch A, Wefer B, Paul U, Loch T. Computerized transrectal ultrasound of the prostate in a multicenter setup (C-TRUS-MS): detection of cancer after multiple negative systematic random and in primary biopsies. World J Urol. 2011;29(5):573–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, Haber GP, Leroy X, Jones JS, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E171–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, Kondo N, Yokoyoma T, Miyaji Y, et al. Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology. 2008;71(2):191–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):66–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, Hoogendoorn SP, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Hambrock T, et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol. 2012;62(5):902–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Miller D, Bishop K, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA, editors. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2013. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2015.Google Scholar
  25. Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, Evans A, Toi A, Finelli A, et al. ‘Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int. 2010;105(9):1231–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Li Y, Tang J, Fei X, Gao Y. Diagnostic performance of contrast enhanced ultrasound in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(2):156–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Maxeiner A, Fischer T, Stephan C, Cash H, Slowinski T, Kilic E, et al. Real-time MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy improves detection rates of prostate cancer in pre-biopsied patients. Aktuelle Urol. 2014;45(3):197–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Miyagawa T, Ishikawa S, Kimura T, Suetomi T, Tsutsumi M, Irie T, et al. Real-time Virtual Sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol. 2010;17(10):855–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mozer P, Roupret M, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, de Gorski A, et al. First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;115(1):50–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P, Begum H, Partin AW, Epstein JI, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int. 2013;111(7):1037–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Overduin CG, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO. MRI-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of current clinical results. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14(3):209–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Ciardi A, Indino EL, Papalia R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(1):17 e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pelzer AE, Heinzelbecker J, Weiss C, Fruhbauer D, Weidner AM, Kirchner M, et al. Real-time sonoelastography compared to magnetic resonance imaging using four different modalities at 3.0 T in the detection of prostate cancer: strength and weaknesses. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(5):814–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy–prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013;268(2):461–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, Schimmoller L, Hiester A, Godehardt E, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2014;192(5):1374–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, Alt CD, Popeneciu IV, Huettenbrink C, et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol. 2015;193(1):87–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rud E, Baco E, Eggesbo HB. MRI and ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using soft image fusion. Anticancer Res. 2012;32(8):3383–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):438–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Scott S, Samaratunga H, Chabert C, Breckenridge M, Gianduzzo T. Is transperineal prostate biopsy more accurate than transrectal biopsy in determining final Gleason score and clinical risk category? A comparative analysis. BJU Int. 2015;116(Suppl 3):26–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Shaw GL, Thomas BC, Dawson SN, Srivastava G, Vowler SL, Gnanapragasam VJ, et al. Identification of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer is not accurate in unscreened men. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(10):2405–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):713–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313(4):390–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. van der Kwast TH, Lopes C, Santonja C, Pihl CG, Neetens I, Martikainen P, et al. Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol. 2003;56(5):336–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C, Brunelle S, Gravis G, Salem N, et al. Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol. 2014;32(4):847–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA, Moskowitz CS, Gondo T, Matsumoto K, et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(6):1606–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Watanabe H, Kaiho H, Tanaka M, Terasawa Y. Diagnostic application of ultrasonotomography to the prostate. Investig Urol. 1971;8(5):548–59.Google Scholar
  47. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):343–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang B, Ma X, Zhan W, Zhu F, Li M, Huang J, et al. Real-time elastography in the diagnosis of patients suspected of having prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014;40(7):1400–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity Medical Center MannheimMannheimGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Thomas Steuber
    • 1
  1. 1.Martini-Klinik am UKE GmbHHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations