S Nafie1, J K Mellon1, J P Dormer2, M A Khan1. 1. Department of Urology, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK. 2. Department of Cellular Pathology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare prostate cancer detection rates between transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) prostate biopsy and transperineal template prostate biopsy (TPTPB) in biopsy naïve men. TRUS biopsy is still regarded as gold standard for prostate cancer diagnosis. TPTPB has been shown to improve prostate cancer detection in men with rising PSA and previous negative TRUS biopsies. We carried out a prospective study performing both biopsies in the same group of men with a benign feeling digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA <20 ng ml(-1) and no previous prostate biopsies. METHODS: A total of 50 patients with mean age of 67 years (range: 54-84), mean prostate volume 58 cc (range: 19-165) and mean PSA 8 ng l(-1) (range: 4-18) underwent standard 12-core TRUS biopsy followed immediately by 36-core TPTPB under general anaesthetic. We determined the prostate cancer detection rate between the two diagnostic modalities. RESULTS: In total, 20/50 (40%) had benign pathology. Of 30/50 (60%) diagnosed with prostate cancer, 16 (32%) had positive results in both TRUS and TPTPB, whereas 14 (28%) had negative TRUS but positive TPTPB. No cancers were detected solely by TRUS biopsy. TRUS biopsy detected cancer in 32% versus 60% with TPTPB. In total, 19/30(63%) cancers detected by TPTPB had Gleason score > or =7.2 (4%) experienced urosepsis, 7 (14%) temporary urinary retention, 16 (32%) mild haematuria and 19 (38%) haematospermia. CONCLUSIONS: TPTPB is associated with significantly higher prostate cancer detection rate than TRUS biopsies in biopsy naïve men with a benign feeling DRE and PSA <20 ng ml(-1). PSA appears to be better biomarker than previously thought.
BACKGROUND: To compare prostate cancer detection rates between transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) prostate biopsy and transperineal template prostate biopsy (TPTPB) in biopsy naïve men. TRUS biopsy is still regarded as gold standard for prostate cancer diagnosis. TPTPB has been shown to improve prostate cancer detection in men with rising PSA and previous negative TRUS biopsies. We carried out a prospective study performing both biopsies in the same group of men with a benign feeling digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA <20 ng ml(-1) and no previous prostate biopsies. METHODS: A total of 50 patients with mean age of 67 years (range: 54-84), mean prostate volume 58 cc (range: 19-165) and mean PSA 8 ng l(-1) (range: 4-18) underwent standard 12-core TRUS biopsy followed immediately by 36-core TPTPB under general anaesthetic. We determined the prostate cancer detection rate between the two diagnostic modalities. RESULTS: In total, 20/50 (40%) had benign pathology. Of 30/50 (60%) diagnosed with prostate cancer, 16 (32%) had positive results in both TRUS and TPTPB, whereas 14 (28%) had negative TRUS but positive TPTPB. No cancers were detected solely by TRUS biopsy. TRUS biopsy detected cancer in 32% versus 60% with TPTPB. In total, 19/30(63%) cancers detected by TPTPB had Gleason score > or =7.2 (4%) experienced urosepsis, 7 (14%) temporary urinary retention, 16 (32%) mild haematuria and 19 (38%) haematospermia. CONCLUSIONS:TPTPB is associated with significantly higher prostate cancer detection rate than TRUS biopsies in biopsy naïve men with a benign feeling DRE and PSA <20 ng ml(-1). PSA appears to be better biomarker than previously thought.
Authors: Simon P Hood; Georgina Cosma; A Graham Pockley; Gemma A Foulds; Catherine Johnson; Stephen Reeder; Stéphanie E McArdle; Masood A Khan Journal: Elife Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniël F Osses; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Georgina Cosma; Stéphanie E McArdle; Gemma A Foulds; Simon P Hood; Stephen Reeder; Catherine Johnson; Masood A Khan; A Graham Pockley Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Georgina Cosma; Stéphanie E McArdle; Stephen Reeder; Gemma A Foulds; Simon Hood; Masood Khan; A Graham Pockley Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 7.561