TRUS-guided transperineal prostate 12+X core biopsy with template for the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Guo,Gang; Xu,Yong; Zhang,Xu

doi:10.3892/ol.2017.6051

TRUS-guided transperineal prostate 12+X core biopsy with template for the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Authors:
- Gang Guo
- Yong Xu
- Xu Zhang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Urology, General Hospital of The People's Liberation Army, Beijing 100853, P.R. China
Published online on: April 20, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6051
Pages: 4863-4867

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to explore the clinical value and safety of trans‑rectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided transperineal prostate 12+X core biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Patients who received a TRUS‑guided transperineal prostate biopsy for suspected prostate cancer at the General Hospital of The People's Liberation Army between September 2009 and May 2014 were retrospectively analyzed, this consisted of 1,300 patients. These patients were randomly divided into the 12+X core group or the standard 12‑core group. The mean age of all the patients was 70.5 years old. Levels of prostate‑specific antigen, digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were checked and used as reference prior and subsequent to the biopsy procedure. The 12+X core group consisted of 937 patients and the 12‑core group consisted of 363 patients. The mean number of core samples taken from both groups was 14.5 (ranging from 12 to 24) and the mean operative time of the whole group was 20.4 min (ranging from 15 to 40 min). The puncture positive detection rate of abnormal rectal examination, trans‑rectal ultrasound, and MRI was 24.0, 30.1, and 59.2%, respectively, whereas the puncture positive rate was 47.2% in 12+X core group and 34.5% in 12-core group. Improved prostate needle biopsy with 12+X cores was found to have significantly higher detection rate than that with 12 cores as well as fewer post‑operative complications, therefore making the method ideal for diagnosing prostate cancer.

View Figures

View References

1	Peng P, Gong YM, Bao PP, Ke JZ, Xiang YM, Zhang ML and Zheng Y: Estimates and prediction of prostate cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence in China, 2008. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 33:1056–1059. 2012.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI
2	Carter HB: American Urological Association (AUA) guideline on prostate cancer detection: Process and rationale. BJU Int. 112:543–547. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Simmons LA, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, Punwani S, Freeman A, Hu Y, Barratt D, Charman SC, Van der Meulen J and Emberton M: The PICTURE study-prostate imaging (multi-parametric MRI and Prostate HistoScanning™) compared to transperineal ultrasound guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer risk evaluation. Contemp Clin Trials. 37:69–83. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Abd TT, Goodman M, Hall J, Ritenour CW, Petros JA, Marshall FF and Issa MM: Comparison of 12-core versus 8-core prostate biopsy: Multivariate analysis of large series of US veterans. Urology. 77:541–547. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Yoon BI, Shin TS, Cho HJ, Hong SH, Lee JY, Hwang TK and Kim SW: Is it effective to perform two more prostate biopsies according to prostate-specific antigen level and prostate volume in detecting prostate cancer? Prospective study of 10-core and 12-core prostate biopsy. Urol J. 9:491–497. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
6	Pepe P and Aragona F: Morbidity after transperineal prostate biopsy in 3000 patients undergoing 12 vs 18 vs more than 24 needle cores. Urology. 81:1142–1146. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK and Stamey TA: Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 142:71–75. 1989.PubMed/NCBI
8	Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, Chen HN, Shukla-Dave A, Eberhardt S, Muruganandham M, Ebora L, Kattan MW, Reuter VE, et al: Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 234:804–814. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C, Sofikerim M, Günay M, Ekici S and Ozen H: An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 45:444–449. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	De Sutter Ph, Coibion M, Vosse M, Hertens D, Huet F, Wesling F, Wayembergh M, Bourdon C and Autier Ph: A multicentre study comparing cervicography and cytology in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 105:613–620. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Bjurlin MA and Taneja SS: Standards for prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol. 24:155–161. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Rochester MA, Griffin S, Chappell B and McLoughlin J: A prospective randomised trial of extended core prostate biopsy protocols utilizing 12 versus 15 cores. Urol Int. 83:155–159. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Chen ME, Johnston DA, Tang K, Babaian RJ and Troncoso P: Detailed mapping of prostate carcinoma foci: Biopsy strategy implications. Cancer. 89:1800–1809. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Yan W, Li H, Zhou Y, Huang Z, Rong S, Xia M, Ji Z, Chen J and Jiang Y: Prostate carcinoma spatial distribution patterns in Chinese men investigated with systematic transperineal ultrasound guided 11-region biopsy. Urol Oncol. 27:520–524. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Vis AN, Boerma MO, Ciatto S, Hoedemaeker RF, Schröder FH and van der Kwast TH: Detection of prostate cancer: A comparative study of the diagnostic efficacy of sextant transrectal versus sextant transperineal biopsy. Urology. 56:617–621. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ, Jager GJ, van Leenders GJ, Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa CA, de la Rosette JJ, Blickman JG and Barentsz JO: Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 229:248–254. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Udeh EI Amu, OC Nnabugwu II and Ozoemena O: Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: Our findings in a tertiary health institution. Niger J Clin Pract. 18:110–114. 2015.PubMed/NCBI
18	Chang DT, Challacombe B and Lawrentschuk N: Transperineal biopsy of the prostate-is this the future? Nat Rev Urol. 10:690–702. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Bittner N, Merrick GS, Butler WM, Bennett A and Galbreath RW: Incidence and pathological features of prostate cancer detected on transperineal template guided mapping biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. J Urol. 190:509–514. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Wagenlehner FM, Pilatz A, Waliszewski P, Weidner W and Johansen TE: Reducing infection rates after prostate biopsy. Nat Rev Urol. 11:80–86. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L, Taneja SS and Emberton M: Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 63:125–140. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Fiard G, Hohn N, Descotes JL, Rambeaud JJ, Troccaz J and Long JA: Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer: Initial clinical experience with real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance and magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. Urology. 81:1372–1378. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Villers A: Words of wisdom. Re: Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 65:1218–1219. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Panebianco V, Sciarra A, Marcantonio A, Forte V, Biondi T, Laghi A and Catalano C: Conventional imaging and multiparametric magnetic resonance (MRI, MRS, DWI, MRP) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 56:331–342. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
25	Correas JM, Tissier AM, Khairoune A, Khoury G, Eiss D and Hélénon O: Ultrasound elastography of the prostate: State of the art. Diagn Interv Imaging. 94:551–560. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Schiffmann J, Fischer J, Tennstedt P, Beyer B, Böhm K, Michl U, Graefen M and Salomon G: Comparison of prostate cancer volume measured by HistoScanningTm and final histopathological results. World J Urol. 32:939–944. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Clyne M: Prostate cancer: Visual estimation versus software fusion for MRI-targeted biopsy. Nat Rev Urol. 11:52014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI