Schema and cancer detection rates for transperineal prostate biopsy templates: a review

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common noncutaneous malignancy in men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality in men in the United States. Current practice requires histopathological confirmation of cancer achieved through biopsy for diagnosis. The transrectal approach for prostate biopsy has been the standard for several decades. However, the risks and limitations of transrectal biopsies have led to a recent resurgence of transperineal prostatic biopsies. Recent studies have demonstrated the transperineal approach for prostate biopsies to be effective, associated with minimal complications and superior in several aspects to traditional transrectal biopsies. While sextant and extended sextant templates are widely accepted templates for transrectal biopsy, there are a diverse set of transperineal biopsy templates available for use, without consensus on the optimal sampling strategy. We aim to critically appraise the salient features of established transperineal biopsy templates.

[1]  R. Popert,et al.  Recent Advances in Systematic and Targeted Prostate Biopsies , 2021, Research and reports in urology.

[2]  John T. Wei,et al.  MP43-05 FREEHAND TRANSPERINEAL BIOPSY SAMPLING STRATEGIES: WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL TEMPLATE? , 2021 .

[3]  O. Bratt,et al.  Rate and characteristics of infection after transrectal prostate biopsy: a retrospective observational study , 2021, Scandinavian journal of urology.

[4]  M. Benndorf,et al.  Evaluation of the Ginsburg Scheme: Where Is Significant Prostate Cancer Missed? , 2021, Cancers.

[5]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[6]  M. Gorin,et al.  Recent Advances and Current Role of Transperineal Prostate Biopsy. , 2021, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[7]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Template Mapping Biopsies: An Overview of Technique and Results , 2021, Interventional Urology.

[8]  U. Nagele,et al.  Transperineal prostate biopsy: The modern gold standard to prostate cancer diagnosis. , 2020, Turkish journal of urology.

[9]  S. Punwani,et al.  Update on multiparametric prostate MRI during active surveillance: current and future trends and role of the PRECISE recommendations. , 2020, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  John T. Wei,et al.  PD38-08 MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL PROSPECTIVE VALIDATION OF THE NOVEL MICHIGAN UROLOGICAL SURGERY IMPROVEMENT COLLABORATIVE TRANSPERINEAL BIOPSY TEMPLATE , 2020 .

[11]  S. Sengupta,et al.  Transperineal prostate biopsy: a review of technique , 2020, Translational andrology and urology.

[12]  A. Warren,et al.  Optimising the number of cores for magnetic resonance imaging‐guided targeted and systematic transperineal prostate biopsy , 2019, BJU international.

[13]  Xiangyi Zheng,et al.  Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2019, World Journal of Surgical Oncology.

[14]  M. Allaf,et al.  In-office Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Using Biplanar Ultrasound Guidance: a Step-by-Step Guide. , 2019, Urology.

[15]  B. Ristau,et al.  Free-hand transperineal prostate biopsy provides acceptable cancer detection and minimizes risk of infection: evolving experience with a 10-sector template. , 2018, Urologic oncology.

[16]  A. Villers,et al.  Beyond transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: available techniques and approaches , 2018, World Journal of Urology.

[17]  M. Ittmann Anatomy and Histology of the Human and Murine Prostate. , 2018, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine.

[18]  A. Partin,et al.  Initial Experience Performing In-office Ultrasound-guided Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Under Local Anesthesia Using the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System. , 2018, Urology.

[19]  F. Wacker,et al.  Evaluation of MRI/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy Using Transrectal and Transperineal Approaches , 2017, BioMed research international.

[20]  P. Pepe,et al.  Multiparametric MRI/TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy: Advantages of a Transperineal Approach. , 2017, Anticancer research.

[21]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .

[22]  M. Roethke,et al.  Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MRI-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy for Index Tumor Detection: Correlation with Radical Prostatectomy Specimen. , 2016, European urology.

[23]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  Reducing Infectious Complications Following Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review. , 2016, Reviews in urology.

[24]  E. Barret,et al.  Transperineal template‐guided mapping biopsy of the prostate , 2015, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[25]  Sadhna Verma,et al.  Anatomic Imaging of the Prostate , 2014, BioMed research international.

[26]  F. Aragona,et al.  Prostate biopsy: results and advantages of the transperineal approach—twenty-year experience of a single center , 2014, World Journal of Urology.

[27]  Nathan Lawrentschuk,et al.  Transperineal biopsy of the prostate—is this the future? , 2013, Nature Reviews Urology.

[28]  R. Sutherland,et al.  Outcomes of transperineal template‐guided prostate biopsy in 409 patients , 2013, BJU international.

[29]  M. Roethke,et al.  Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics , 2013, BJU international.

[30]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[31]  R. Veltri,et al.  Development, Molecular Biology, and Physiology of the Prostate , 2012 .

[32]  G. Onik,et al.  Transperineal 3D mapping biopsy of the prostate: an essential tool in selecting patients for focal prostate cancer therapy. , 2008, Urologic oncology.

[33]  A B Jani,et al.  ‘Insignificant’ prostate cancer on biopsy: pathologic results from subsequent radical prostatectomy , 2007, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[34]  Holly T. Sullivan,et al.  Clinical staging of prostate cancer: a computer‐simulated study of transperineal prostate biopsy , 2005, BJU international.

[35]  P. Schellhammer,et al.  Voiding impairment after prostate biopsy: does tamsulosin treatment before biopsy decrease this morbidity? , 2003, Urology.

[36]  V. Pansadoro,et al.  The value of a single biopsy with 12 transperineal cores for detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[37]  A. Meikle,et al.  Effects of age and sex hormones on transition and peripheral zone volumes of prostate and benign prostatic hyperplasia in twins. , 1997, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[38]  M. Terris,et al.  Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[39]  T. Guthrie,et al.  Prostate cancer. , 2020, American family physician.