Controversies in MR targeted biopsy: alone or combined, cognitive versus software-based fusion, transrectal versus transperineal approach?
To review the evidence addressing current controversies around prostate biopsy. Specific questions explored were (1) mpMRI targeted (TgBx) alone versus combined with systematic (SBx) biopsy; (2) cognitive versus software-based targeted biopsy; (3) transrectal or transperineal route (TP).
We performed a literature search of peer-reviewed English language articles using PubMed and the words “prostate” AND “biopsy”. Web search was implemented by manual search.
Prostate mpMRI is revolutionizing prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, and TgBx improves the detection of clinically significant (cs) PCa compared to SBx alone. The utility of combining SBx–TgBx is variable, but in non-expert centres the two should be combined to overcome learning curve-limitations. Whether SBx should be maintained in expert centres depends on what rate of missed cancer the urological community and patients are prone to accept; this has implications for insignificant cancer diagnosis as well. TgBx may be more precise using a software-based-approach despite cognitive TgBx proved non-inferior in some studies, and may be used for large accessible lesions. TP-biopsies are feasible in an in-office setting. Avoidance of the rectum and accessibility of virtually all prostate areas are attractive features. However, this has to be balanced with local setting and resources implications. Ongoing trials will shed light on unsolved issues.
The prostate biopsy strategy should be tailored to local expertise, needs and resources availability. Targeted biopsy enhance the ratio between cs and insignificant cancer diagnosis, although some csPCa might be missed. Software-based TgBx are likely to be more precise, especially for new users, although the additional cost might be not justified in all cases. TPBx have ideal attributes for performing TgBx and avoiding infection, although this has resources implications.
KeywordsProstate biopsy MRI Targeted biopsy Transperineal Transrectal Cognitive
The members of the EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Party: G. Ploussard, P. J. L. De Visschere, I. Tsaur, D. Tilki, P. Ost, G. Gandaglia, R. C. N. Van Den Bergh, C. Surcel, A. Kretschmer, I. Heidegger, M. Valerio, H. Borgmann, R. Mathieu.
Protocol/project development: GM, MV; Data collection or management: GM; Data analysis: GM, MV; Manuscript writing: GM; Manuscript editing and review for important intellectual contents: MV, GP, JF.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 5.NICE Interventional Procedure Guidelines IPG 475 (2014) (https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg475). Accessed Jan 2014
- 9.Marra G, Gontero P, Valerio M (2016) Changing the prostate cancer management pathway: why focal therapy is a step forward. Arch Esp Urol 69:271–280Google Scholar
- 21.Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L et al (2017) Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 71:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Davis P, Paul E, Grummet J (2015) Current practice of prostate biopsy in Australia and New Zealand: a survey. Urol Ann 7:315–319Google Scholar
- 25.Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG (2014) 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 68:438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Paakko E et al (2016) Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol 69:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R et al (2017) What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 72:250–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Oderda M, Marra G, Albisinni S et al (2018) Accuracy of elastic fusion biopsy in daily practice: results of a multicenter study of 2115 patients. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc 25:990Google Scholar
- 40.Mischinger J, Kaufmann S, Russo GI et al (2017) Targeted vs systematic robot-assisted transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy. BJU Int 125:791Google Scholar
- 43.Marra G, Ploussard G, Ost P et al (2018) Focal therapy in localised prostate cancer: real-world urological perspective explored in a cross-sectional European survey. Urol Oncol 36:529Google Scholar
- 71.Chung HS, Hwang EC, Yu HS et al (2017) Prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant rectal flora in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy: a prospective multicenter study. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc 25(3):278–283Google Scholar
- 73.Bonkat G, Bartoletti R, Bruyère F, Geerlings SE, Wagenlehner F, Wullt B, Cai T, Köves B, Pilatz A, Pradere B, Veeratterapillay R (2017) EAU guidelines on urological infections. http://uroweb.org/guideline/urological-infections/. Accessed 15 Feb 2018
- 80.Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S et al (2014) Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int 114:384–388Google Scholar
- 84.Wadhwa K, Carmona-Echeveria L, Kuru T et al (2017) Transperineal prostate biopsies for diagnosis of prostate cancer are well tolerated: a prospective study using patient-reported outcome measures. Asian J Androl 19:62–66Google Scholar
- 92.Hakozaki Y, Matsushima H, Kumagai J et al (2017) A prospective study of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion targeted biopsy and concurrent systematic transperineal biopsy with the average of 18-cores to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. BMC Urol 12(17):117CrossRefGoogle Scholar