Prostate Cancer Biopsy: Strategies
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.
- American Urological Association (AUA). Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline [Internet]. 2013 [updated 2013 Apr; cited 2017 Jan 25]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Prostate-Cancer-Detection.pdf.
- Astraldi A. Diagnosis of cancer of the prostate: biopsy by rectal route. Urol Cutan Rev. 1937;41:421.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Barringer BS. Carcinoma of the prostate. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1922;34:168–76.Google Scholar
- 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: http://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/043-022OLl_S3_Prostatakarzinom_2016-12.pdf.
- European Association of Urology (EAU). Guidelines on prostate cancer [Internet]. 2016 [updated 2016 Mar; cited 2017 Jan 25]. Available from: http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Watanabe H, Kaiho H, Tanaka M, Terasawa Y. Diagnostic application of ultrasonotomography to the prostate. Investig Urol. 1971;8(5):548–59.Google Scholar
- 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