Altan Omer1,2, Alastair D Lamb1,3. 1. Department of Urology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford. 2. University Hospital Coventry & Warwickshire, Coventry. 3. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics have undergone a number of changes as a result of efforts to reduce the detection rate of indolent prostate cancer and to increase the hit rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Here, we look at those studies that have shifted our knowledge and the impact these have had on clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: The introduction of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and approaches to active surveillance have changed the landscape in prostate cancer diagnostics, reducing the number of men that need biopsy, but increasing the need for accuracy in mapping the extent of prostate cancer. As mpMRI reporting has become more accurate at predicting PCa, biopsy techniques have also evolved towards lesion (PI-RADS score 3-5) targeted biopsies. Uncertainty remains regarding the preferred approach to targeted biopsy, the need for systematic biopsies, and the place of software ultrasound/MRI fusion or in-bore MRI biopsy techniques versus 'cognitive' fusion techniques. SUMMARY: Prostate biopsies remain essential for the diagnosis of PCa. But how best to do this? Latest guidelines advocate performing both targeted and systematic biopsies. Traditionally, prostate biopsies have been performed transrectally (TRUS) with hospital readmission rates of around 3% mainly because of infection. Additionally, TRUS prostate biopsies can miss anterior prostatic lesions. The transperineal approach addresses both these issues, but has historically required general anaesthetic such that adoption for front-line diagnostics is very difficult. Recent techniques to undertake transperineal biopsy under local anaesthetic have fundamentally changed this paradigm offering the genuine possibility that in 5 years' time, all front-line diagnostic biopsies will be performed as LATP.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics have undergone a number of changes as a result of efforts to reduce the detection rate of indolent prostate cancer and to increase the hit rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Here, we look at those studies that have shifted our knowledge and the impact these have had on clinical practice. RECENT FINDINGS: The introduction of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and approaches to active surveillance have changed the landscape in prostate cancer diagnostics, reducing the number of men that need biopsy, but increasing the need for accuracy in mapping the extent of prostate cancer. As mpMRI reporting has become more accurate at predicting PCa, biopsy techniques have also evolved towards lesion (PI-RADS score 3-5) targeted biopsies. Uncertainty remains regarding the preferred approach to targeted biopsy, the need for systematic biopsies, and the place of software ultrasound/MRI fusion or in-bore MRI biopsy techniques versus 'cognitive' fusion techniques. SUMMARY: Prostate biopsies remain essential for the diagnosis of PCa. But how best to do this? Latest guidelines advocate performing both targeted and systematic biopsies. Traditionally, prostate biopsies have been performed transrectally (TRUS) with hospital readmission rates of around 3% mainly because of infection. Additionally, TRUS prostate biopsies can miss anterior prostatic lesions. The transperineal approach addresses both these issues, but has historically required general anaesthetic such that adoption for front-line diagnostics is very difficult. Recent techniques to undertake transperineal biopsy under local anaesthetic have fundamentally changed this paradigm offering the genuine possibility that in 5 years' time, all front-line diagnostic biopsies will be performed as LATP.
Authors: Francesca Buonomo; Sofia Bussolaro; Clarice de Almeida Fiorillo; Danilo Oliveira de Souza; Fabiola Giudici; Federico Romano; Andrea Romano; Giuseppe Ricci Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-30 Impact factor: 4.964