Transperineal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Czech version

Authors: Jiří Stejskal; Vítězslav Hanáček; Vanda Adamcová; Roman Zachoval
Authors‘ workplace: Urologická klinika 3. lékařské fakulty a Fakultní Thomayerovy nemocnice v Praze
Published in: Ces Urol 2021; 25(2): 94-105
Category: Review article

Overview

Stejskal J, Hanáček V, Adamcová V, Zachoval R. Transperineal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Despite advances in imaging methods and the use of novel biomarkers, prostate biopsy still plays a vital part in prostate cancer diagnostics. Along with the widespread use of MRI/TRUS fusion guided biopsies we are recently witnessing a resurgence of transperineal approach in prostate biopsy.

Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBxP) offers to avoid infectious complications by omitting the transrectal approach. Furthermore, TPBxP offers to improve the detection rate in the, sometimes undersampled, anterior part of the gland in patients after previous negative transrectal biopsies or with anterior prostate lesions visible on MRI.

As TPBxP is not yet widely used in clinical practice, in this text we aim to offer a review of literature concerning TPBxP available in the PubMed database.

According to the available data, TPBxP is easy to perform under general or local anaesthesia and is well tolerated by patients. Detection rate of prostate cancer is similar to that of the transrectal approach, except in the anterior parts of the prostate where TPBxP detects more cancer. TPBxP also seems to have less infectious complications and cases of rectal bleeding after biopsy. The incidence of other prostate biopsy complications is similar between transrectal and transperineal approach.

Keywords:

transperineal prostate biopsy – prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia – prostate biopsy complications – prostate cancer – clinically significant prostate cancer

Sources

1. Yeo L, Patel D, Bach C, et al. The Development of the Modern Prostate Biopsy. In: Bissada NK, editor. Prostate Biopsy [Internet]. InTech; 2011 [cited 2018 Nov 2]. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/ books/prostate-biopsy/the-development-of-the-modern-prostate-biopsy.

2. Stejskal J, Jaskova V, Pavlicko A, et al. Diagnostika karcinomu prostaty pomoci fúzní biopsie. Ces Urol 2018; 22(2): 87–98.

3. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer – 2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 2021; 79(2): 243–62.

4. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64(6): 876–892.

5. Záleský M, Stejskal J, Minárik I, et al. Porovnání detekce signifikantního a nesignifikantního karcinomu pomocí systematické a cílené fúzní MRI/TRUS biopsie prostaty. Ces Urol 2018; 22(2): 115–121.

6. Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG. Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol 2008; 10(4): 262–280.

7. Čapoun O, Sobotka R, Macek P, Hanuš T. Predictive factors for prostate cancer detection using saturation prostate biopsy. Ces Urol 2012; 16(3): 163–170.

8. Boehm K, Siegel FP, Schneidewind L, et al. Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Prostate Biopsies: Contemporary Practice Patterns in Germany. Front Surg [Internet]. 2018 Jan 24 [cited 2021 Jan 23]; 5. Available from: https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5787537/.

9. Eldred-Evans D, Kasivisvanathan V, Khan F, et al. The Use of Transperineal Sector Biopsy as A First-Line Biopsy Strategy: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Complications. Urol J 2016; 13(5): 2849–2855.

10. Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, et al. Transperineal Prostate Biopsies Using Local Anesthesia: Experience with 1,287 Patients. Prostate Cancer Detection Rate, Complications and Patient Tolerability. J Urol 2019; 201(6): 1121–1126.

11. Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, et al. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019; 17(1): 31.

12. Tu X, Liu Z, Chang T, et al. Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy May Perform Better Than Transrectal Route in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2019; 17(5): e860–870.

13. Rai BP, Mayerhofer C, Somani BK, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsy‑ A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Jan 18.

14. Bruyère F, d’Arcier BF, Boutin J-M, Haillot O. Is urine culture routinely necessary before prostate biopsy? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010; 13(3): 260–262.

15. Baba K, Sekine Y, Miyazawa Y, et al. Assessment of antimicrobiral prophylaxis in transperineal prostate biopsy: A single-center retrospective study of 485 cases. J Infect Chemother Off J Jpn Soc Chemother. 2018; 24(8): 637–640.

16. Iremashvili VV, Chepurov AK, Kobaladze KM, Gamidov SI. Periprostatic Local Anesthesia With Pudendal Block for Transperineal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy: A Randomized Trial. Urology 2010; 75(5): 1023–1027.

17. Marra G, Zhuang J, Marquis A, et al. Pain in Men Undergoing Transperineal Free-Hand Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Targeted Biopsies under Local Anesthesia: Outcomes and Predictors from a Multicenter Study of 1,008 Patients. J Urol 2020; 204(6): 1209–1215.

18. Vyas L, Acher P, Kinsella J, et al. Indications, results and safety profile of transperineal sector biopsies (TPSB) of the prostate: a single centre experience of 634 cases. BJU Int 2014; 114(1): 32–37.

19. Thurtle D, Starling L, Leonard K, et al. Improving the safety and tolerability of local anaesthetic outpatient transperineal prostate biopsies: A pilot study of the CAMbridge PROstate Biopsy (CAMPROBE) method. J Clin Urol 2018; 11: 205141581876268.

20. Babaei Jandaghi A, Habibzadeh H, Falahatkar S, Heidarzadeh A, Pourghorban R. Transperineal Prostate Core Needle Biopsy: A Comparison of Coaxial Versus Noncoaxial Method in a Randomised Trial. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2016; 39(12): 1736–1742.

21. Lopez JF, Campbell A, Omer A, et al. Local Anaesthetic Transperineal Prostate (LATP) biopsy using a probe-mounted transperineal access system: a multi-centre prospective outcome analysis. BJU Int. 2021 Jan 15.

22. Leyh-Bannurah S-R, Kachanov M, Beyersdorff D, et al. Minimum Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy Cores Needed for Prostate Cancer Detection: Multivariable Retrospective, Lesion Based Analyses of Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy. J Urol 2020; 203(2): 299–303.

23. Song G, Ruan M, Wang H, et al. How Many Targeted Biopsy Cores are Needed for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection during Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy? J Urol 2020; 204(6): 1202–1208.

24. Bass EJ, Donaldson IA, Freeman A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017; 20(3): 311–317.

25. Marra G, Marquis A, Tappero S, et al. Transperineal Free-hand mpMRI Fusion-targeted Biopsies Under Local Anesthesia: Technique and Feasibility From a Single-center Prospective Study. Urology 2020; 140: 122–31.

26. Ryšánková K, Hanzlíková P, Vrtková A, et al. Transperineálně prováděné fúzní US/MRI navigované biopsie prostaty. 2021; Jan 22 [cited 2021 Feb 25]; Available from: http://czechurol.cz/doi/10.nnnn/cur.2021.001.html.

27. He B-M, Chen R, Shi Z-K, et al. Trans-Perineal Template-Guided Mapping Biopsy vs. Freehand Trans‑ -Perineal Biopsy in Chinese Patients With PSA < 20 ng/ml: Similar Cancer Detection Rate but Different Lesion Detection Rate. Front Oncol 2019; 9: 758.

28. Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A, et al. Trans-rectal Versus Trans-Perineal Saturation Rebiopsy of the Prostate: Is There a Difference in Cancer Detection Rate? Urology 2011; 77(4): 921–925.

29. Di Franco CA, Jallous H, Porru D, et al. A retrospective comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl Organo Uff Soc Ital Ecogr Urol E Nefrol 2017; 89(1): 55–59.

30. Marra G, Eldred-Evans D, Challacombe B, et al. Pathological Concordance between Prostate Biopsies and Radical Prostatectomy Using Transperineal Sector Mapping Biopsies: Validation and Comparison with Transrectal Biopsies. Urol Int 2017; 99(2): 168–176.

31. 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.

32. Shen P-F, Zhu Y-C, Wei W-R, et al. The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 2012; 14(2): 310–315.

33. Nelson AW, Harvey RC, Parker RA, et al. Repeat prostate biopsy strategies after initial negative biopsy: meta-regression comparing cancer detection of transperineal, transrectal saturation and MRI guided biopsy. PLoS One 2013; 8(2): e57480.

34. Zhang Q, Wang W, Zhang B, et al. Comparison of free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy with transperineal 12-core systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a single-center prospective study in China. Int Urol Nephrol [Internet]. 2016 Dec 22. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11255-016-1484-8.

35. Miah S, Hosking-Jervis F, Connor MJ, et al. A Multicentre Analysis of the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Following Transperineal Image-fusion Targeted and Nontargeted Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men at Risk. Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 3(3): 262–269.

36. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, 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.

37. Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int [Internet]. 2016 Nov 10. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.13711

38. Borkowetz A, Hadaschik B, Platzek I, et al. Prospective comparison of transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion biopsy and transrectal systematic biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients. BJU Int 2018; 121(1): 53–60.

39. Loy LM, Lim GH, Leow JJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound guided fusion biopsy of prostate for cancer detection – comparing transrectal with transperineal approaches. Urol Oncol 2020; 38(8): 650–660.

40. Khoo CC, Eldred-Evans D, Peters M, et al. A Comparison of Prostate Cancer Detection between Visual Estimation (Cognitive Registration) and Image Fusion (Software Registration) Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy. J Urol 2020; Nov 18; 101097JU0000000000001476.

41. Meyer AR, Mamawala M, Winoker JS, et al. Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Improves the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer among Men on Active Surveillance. J Urol 2020; Dec 1;101097JU0000000000001523.

42. Xue J, Qin Z, Cai H, et al. Comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy for detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget 2017; 8(14): 23322–23336.

43. Guo L-H, Wu R, Xu H-X, et al. Comparison between Ultrasound Guided Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Trial. Sci Rep 2015; 5(1): 16089.

44. Bittner N, Merrick G, Taira A, et al. Location and Grade of Prostate Cancer Diagnosed by Transperineal Template-guided Mapping Biopsy After Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy. Am J Clin Oncol 2018; 41(8): 723–729.

45. Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, et al. Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int 2014; 114(3): 384–388.

46. Mai Z, Yan W, Zhou Y, et al. Transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy: 10 years of experience. BJU Int 2016; 117(3): 424–429.

47. Togo Y, Kubo T, Taoka R, et al. Occurrence of infection following prostate biopsy procedures in Japan: Japanese Research Group for Urinary Tract Infection (JRGU) – a multi-center retrospective study. J Infect Chemother Off J Jpn Soc Chemother 2014; 20(4): 232–237.

48. Berry B, Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, et al. Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population – based study. BJU Int 2020; 126(1): 97–103.

49. Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SR, Gardiner RA. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect 2016; 144(8): 1784–1791.

50. Pradere B, Veeratterapillay R, Dimitropoulos K, et al. Nonantibiotic Strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol 2021; 205(3): 653–663.

51. Moran BJ, Braccioforte MH, Conterato DJ. Re-biopsy of the prostate using a stereotactic transperineal technique. J Urol 2006; 176(4 Pt 1): 1376–1381; discussion 1381.

52. Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, et al. Complications After Systematic, Random, and Image-guided Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol 2017; 71(3): 353–365.

53. Pepe P, Pennisi M. Erectile dysfunction in 1 050 men following extended (18 cores) vs saturation (28 cores) vs saturation plus MRI-targeted prostate biopsy (32 cores). Int J Impot Res. 2016; 28(1): 1–3.

54. García Rojo E, García Gómez B, González Padilla DA, et al. Assessment of the influence of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsies on erectile function: A prospective observational single-center study. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc 2019; 26(11): 1054–1058.