Abstract
Prostate biopsy remains the single most valuable pretreatment source of prognostic information, relating Gleason score, and volume estimates. Compared with sextant biopsy, extended sampling schema involving 12 cores incorporating the apical and lateral peripheral zone offers improved cancer detection rates. Well-reported limitations of systematic TRUS prostate biopsy include both over- and undersampling of disease that may be associated with disease mischaracterization, in addition to low but considerable rates of biopsy-related complications. The integration of additional ultrasonographic parameters including contrast enhancement, Power Doppler Imaging, and elastography has been explored to improve the discrimination of suspicious lesions during biopsy while means to refine initial selection for biopsy utilizing novel serum biomarkers appear to offer specificity beyond PSA and clinical parameters alone. In the setting of an initial negative biopsy, tissue-based methylation assays of histologically benign tissue may improve the negative predictive value of biopsies and reduce the need for repeat sampling. In addition, significant promise is held by the integration of magnetic resonance imaging modalities with TRUS-Bx to offer targeted biopsy strategies.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Dugan JA, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, et al. The definition and preoperative prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. JAMA. 1996;275(4):288–94.
Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, et al. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol. 2011;29(5):508–14.
Ploussard G, de la Taille A. Prostate biopsies: let’s move forward. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):893–4.
Lecornet E, Ahmed HU, Hu Y, et al. The accuracy of different biopsy strategies for the detection of clinically important prostate cancer: a computer simulation. J Urol. 2012;188(3):974–80.
Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272–7.
Swanson GP, Epstein JI, Ha CS, Kryvenko ON. Pathological characteristics of low risk prostate cancer based on totally embedded prostatectomy specimens. Prostate. 2015;75(4):424–9.
Miller GJ, Cygan JM. Morphology of prostate cancer: the effects of multifocality on histological grade, tumor volume and capsule penetration. J Urol. 1994;152(5 Pt 2):1709–13.
Grabstald H, Elliott JL. Transrectal biopsy of the prostate. JAMA. 1953;153(6): 563–565
Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:71.
Siu W, Dunn RL, Shah RB, Wei JT. Use of extended pattern technique for initial prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2005;174:505–9.
Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparen P, Norlen BJ, Busch C. The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology. 1997;50:562.
Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):66–70.
Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1605–12.
Gore JL, Shariat SF, Miles BJ, et al. Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;165(5):1554–9.
Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K, et al. A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol. 2000;163:152–7.
Elabbady AA, Khedr MM. Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2006;49:49–53.
de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, et al. Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology. 2003;61:1181.
Meng MV, Elkin EP, DuChane J, Carroll PR. Impact of increased number of biopsies on the nature of prostate cancer identified. J Urol. 2006;176:63–8.
AUA. Optimal Techniques of Prostate Biopsy and Specimen Handling. White Paper. http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Prostate-Biopsy-WhitePaper.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb, 2015.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines(r)): prostate cancer early detection. Version 1.2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate_detection.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2015.
Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L, et al. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology. 2009;73(5):1087–91.
Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006;49(5):820–6.
Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary Grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1019–24.
Dinh KT, Mahal BA, Ziehr DR et al. Incidence and predictors of upgrading and upstaging among 10,000 contemporary patients with low-risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015;pii: S0022–5347(15)00254–2. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.015. [Epub ahead of print].
Borboroglu PG, Comer SW, Riffenburgh RH, Amling CL. Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol. 2000 Jan;163(1):158–62
Serefoglu EC, Altinova S, Ugras NS, et al. How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? Can Urol Assoc J. 2012;2:1–6.
Clyne M. Prostate cancer: does a negative second biopsy give patients false hope? Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(6):310.
Presti Jr JC, O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, et al. Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol. 2003;169(1):125–9.
Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, Marchand C, et al. Risk of repeat biopsy and prostate cancer detection after an initial extended negative biopsy: longitudinal follow-up from a prospective trial. BJU Int. 2013;111(6):988–96.
Iczkowski KA, MacLennan GT, Bostwick DG. Atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy in prostate needle biopsies: clinical significance in 33 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(12):1489–95.
Alsikafi NF, Brendler CB, Gerber GS, et al. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with adjacent atypia is associated with a higher incidence of cancer on subsequent needle biopsy than high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia alone. Urology. 2001;57(2):296–300.
Netto GJ, Epstein JI. Widespread high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on prostatic needle biopsy: a significant likelihood of subsequently diagnosed adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(9):1184–8.
Lee MC, Moussa AS, Yu C, et al. Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a risk factor for subsequent prostate cancer. J Urol. 2010;184(5):1958–62.
Raaijmakers R et al. Complication rates and risk factors of 5802 transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies of the prostate within a population-based screening program. Urology. 2002;60(5):826–30.
Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X, et al. Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1110–4.
Williamson DA, Masters J, Freeman J, Roberts S. Travel-associated extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli bloodstream infection following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2012;109(7):E21–2.
Dalhoff A. Global fluoroquinolone resistance epidemiology and implications for clinical use. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis. 2012;2012:976273.
Fujita K, Landis P, McNeil BK. Serial prostate biopsies are associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2664–9.
Hilton JF, Blaschko SD, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, Carroll PR. The impact of serial prostate biopsies on sexual function in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(4):1252–8.
Braun K, Ahallal Y, Sjoberg DD, et al. Effect of repeated prostate biopsies on erectile function in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2014;191(3):744–9.
Macefield RC, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, et al. Do the risk factors of age, family history of prostate cancer or a higher prostate specific antigen level raise anxiety at prostate biopsy? Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:2569–73.
Tekdogan U, Tuncel A, Nalcacioglu V, Kisa C, Aslan Y, Atan A. Is the pain level of patients affected by anxiety during transrectal prostate needle biopsy? Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2008;42:24–8.
Peyromaure M, Ravery V, Messas A, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L. Pain and morbidity of an extensive prostate 10-biopsy protocol: a prospective study in 289 patients. J Urol. 2002;167:218–21.
Mkinen T, Auvinen A, Hakama M, Stenman UH, Tammela TL. Acceptability and complications of prostate biopsy in population-based PSA screening versus routine clinical practice: a prospective, controlled study. Urology. 2002;60(5):846–50.
Ragavan N, Philip J, Balasubramanian SP, et al. A randomized, controlled trial comparing lidocaine periprostatic nerve block, diclofenac suppository and both for transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of prostate. J Urol. 2005;174(2):510–3. discussion 513.
Ooi WL, Hawks C, Tan AH, Hayne D. A randomised controlled trial comparing use of lignocaine periprostatic nerve block alone and combined with diclofenac suppository for patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2014;114 Suppl 1:45–9.
Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, et al. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830–4.
Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H, et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among 3 protocols with 6, 10 and 15 cores. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1478–80. discussion 1480-1.
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–92.
Liss MA, Taylor SA, Batura D, et al. Fluoroquinolone resistant rectal colonization predicts risk of complications after transrectal prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2014;192(6):1673–8.
Taylor AK, Zembower TR, Nadler RB, et al. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications and cost of care. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1275–9.
Abughosh Z, Margolick J, Goldenberg SL, et al. A prospective randomized trial of povidone-iodine prophylactic cleansing of the rectum before transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013;189(4):1326–31.
Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator. Available at http://deb.uthscsa.edu/URORiskCalc/Pages/uroriskcalc.jsp. Accessed 25 Feb, 2015.
Thompson IM, Chi C, Ankerst DP, Goodman P, Tangen C, Lippman S, et al. Effect of finasteride on the sensitivity of PSA for detecting prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1128–33.
Ankerst DP, Till C, Boeck A, Goodman P, Tangen CM, Feng Z, et al. The impact of prostate volume, number of biopsy cores, and AUA symptom score on the sensitivity of cancer detection using the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator. J Urol. 2013;190(1):70–6.
Parekh DJ, Ankerst DP, Higgins BA, et al. External validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator in a screened population. Urology. 2006;68(6):1152–5.
Nguyen CT, Yu C, Moussa A, Kattan MW, Jones JS. Performance of prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator in a contemporary cohort screened for prostate cancer and diagnosed by extended prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2010;183(2):529–33.
Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;pii: S0302–2838(14)01035–5. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.021. [Epub ahead of print].
Vedder MM, de Bekker-Grob EW, Lilja HG, et al. The added value of percentage of free to total prostate-specific antigen, PCA3, and a kallikrein panel to the ERSPC risk calculator for prostate cancer in prescreened men. Eur Urol. 2014;66(6):1109–15.
Nordström T, Vickers A, Assel M et al. Comparison between the four-kallikrein panel and prostate health index for predicting prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;pii: S0302–2838(14)00752–0. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.010. [Epub ahead of print].
Bilger SA, Deering RE, Brawer MK. Comparison of microscopic vascularity in benign and malignant prostate tissue. Hum Pathol. 1993;24:220–6.
Donnelly EF, Geng L, Wojcicki WE, Fleischer AG, Hallahan DE. Quantified power Doppler US of tumor blood flow correlates with microscopic quantification of tumor blood vessels. Radiology. 2001;219:166–70.
Remzi M, Dobrovits M, Reissigl A, et al. Can Power Doppler enhanced transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection on first and repeat prostate biopsy? Eur Urol. 2004;46(4):451–6.
Sauvain JL, Sauvain E, Rohmer P, et al. Value of transrectal power Doppler sonography in the detection of low-risk prostate cancers. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94(1):60–7.
Rifkin MD, Dahnert W, Kurtz AB. State of the art: endorectal sonography of the prostate gland. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;154:691–700.
Engelbrecht MR, Barentsz JO, Jager GJ, et al. Prostate cancer staging using imaging. BJU Int. 2000;86 Suppl 1:123–34.
Jung AJ, Coakley FV, Shinohara K, et al. Local staging of prostate cancer: comparative accuracy of T2-weighted endorectal MR imaging and transrectal ultrasound. Clin Imaging. 2012;36(5):547–52.
Xie SW, Li HL, Du J, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with contrast-tuned imaging technology for the detection of prostate cancer: comparison with conventional ultrasonography. BJU Int. 2012;109:1620–6.
Jiang J, Chen YQ, Zhu YK, et al. Factors influencing the degree of enhancement of prostate cancer on contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasonography: correlation with biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:e979–86.
Sano F, Terao H, Kawahara T, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the prostate: various imaging findings that indicate prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2011;107:1404–10.
Cosgrove D. Ultrasound contrast agents: an overview. Eur J Radiol. 2006;60:324–30.
Halpern EJ, Gomella LG, Forsberg F, et al. Contrast enhanced transrectal ultrasound for the detection of prostate cancer: a randomized, double blind trial of dutasteride pretreatment. J Urol. 2012;188(5):1739–45.
Wang L, Li L, Guo Y, et al. Construction and in vitro/in vivo targeting of PSMA-targeted nanoscale microbubbles in prostate cancer. Prostate. 2013;73(11):1147–58.
Barr RG, Memo R, Schaub CR. Shear wave ultrasound elastography of the prostate: initial results. Ultrasound Q. 2012;28:13–20.
Salomon G, Köllerman J, Thederan I, et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;54(6):1354–62.
Zhang M, Nigwekar P, Castaneda B, Hoyt K, Joseph JV, di Sant’Agnese A, et al. Quantitative characterization of viscoelastic properties of human prostate correlated with histology. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2008;34:1033–42.
Brock M, von Bodman C, Palisaar RJ, et al. The impact of real-time elastography guiding a systematic prostate biopsy to improve cancer detection rate: a prospective study of 353 patients. J Urol. 2012;187(6):2039–43.
Brock M, Eggert T, Palisaar RJ, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound of the prostate: adding contrast enhanced ultrasound to real-time elastography to detect histopathologically confirmed cancer. J Urol. 2013;189(1):93–8.
Troyer DA, Lucia MS, de Bruine AP, et al. Prostate cancer detected by methylated gene markers in histopathologically cancer-negative tissues from men with subsequent positive biopsies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18(10):2717–22.
Stewart GD, Van Neste L, Delvenne P, et al. Clinical utility of an epigenetic assay to detect occult prostate cancer in histopathologically negative biopsies: results of the MATLOC study. J Urol. 2013;189(3):1110–6.
Partin AW, Van Neste L, Klein EA, et al. Clinical validation of an epigenetic assay to predict negative histopathological results in repeat prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2014;192(4):1081–7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.013. Epub 2014 Apr 18.
Wojno KJ, Costa FJ, Cornell RJ, et al. Reduced rate of repeated prostate biopsies observed in ConfirmMDx Clinical Utility Field Study. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2014;7(3):129–34.
Pinsky PF, Crawford ED, Kramer BS, et al. Repeat prostate biopsy in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial. BJU Int. 2007;99:775–9.
Numao N, Yoshida S, Komai Y, et al. Usefulness of prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190:502–8.
Jambor I, Kahkonen E, Taimen P, et al. Prebiopsy multiparametric 3T prostate MRI in patients with elevated PSA, normal digital rectal examination, and no previous biopsy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(5):1394–404.
Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS, et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2014;191(6):1749–54.
Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(6):1382–90.
Testa C, Schiavina R, Lodi R, et al. Accuracy of MRI/MRSI-based transrectal ultrasound biopsy in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate gland in patients with prior negative biopsy. NMR Biomed. 2010;23(9):1017–26.
Donati OF, Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, et al. Prostate cancer aggressiveness: assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology. 2014;271(1):143–52.
Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):22–9.
Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, 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.
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, 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.
Moore CM, Petrides N, Emberton M. Can MRI replace serial biopsies in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer? Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(3):280–7.
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:597–603.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leapman, M.S., Shinohara, K. (2016). TRUS Biopsy: Is There Still a Role?. In: Stone, N., Crawford, E. (eds) The Prostate Cancer Dilemma. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21485-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21485-6_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21484-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21485-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)