Giancarlo Marra1, Guillaume Ploussard2, Jurgen Futterer3, Massimo Valerio4. 1. Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, C.so Bramante 88/90, 10100, Turin, Italy. drgiancarlomarra@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Saint Jean Languedoc Hospital and Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse Oncopole, Toulouse, France. 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
PURPOSE: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Giancarlo Marra; Taimur T Shah; Daniele D'Agate; Alessandro Marquis; Giorgio Calleris; Luca Lunelli; Claudia Filippini; Marco Oderda; Marco Gatti; Massimo Valerio; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Alberto Bossi; Juan Gomez-Rivas; Francesca Conte; Desiree Deandreis; Olivier Cussenot; Umberto Ricardi; Paolo Gontero Journal: Front Surg Date: 2022-06-07
Authors: Yuqian Gao; Yi-Ting Wang; Yongmei Chen; Hui Wang; Denise Young; Tujin Shi; Yingjie Song; Athena A Schepmoes; Claire Kuo; Thomas L Fillmore; Wei-Jun Qian; Richard D Smith; Sudhir Srivastava; Jacob Kagan; Albert Dobi; Isabell A Sesterhenn; Inger L Rosner; Gyorgy Petrovics; Karin D Rodland; Shiv Srivastava; Jennifer Cullen; Tao Liu Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-05-17 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Keiran D Clement; Lizzy Day; Helen Rooney; Matt Neilson; Fiona Birrell; Mark Salji; Elizabeth Norman; Ross Clark; Amit Patel; John Morrison; Hing Y Leung Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2021 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.285