Objectives: We investigated the efficacy of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy (TTMB) for patients on active surveillance (AS) or those with previous negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 99 patients on AS and 60 patients with previous negative TRUS-Bx, which is a total of 159 patients who underwent TTMB from May 2017 to January 2019. Cancer location was analyzed with focus on the anterior and apex lesions of the prostate after TTMB. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was performed before TTMB. Cancer location after TTMB in 138 patients, excluding 21 patients who were not eligible for analysis (4 patients on AS and 17 patients with previous negative TRUS-Bx) was compared with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSTM v2) score. Factors that may affect detecting cancer after TTMB with previous negative TRUS-Bx was analyzed using a logistic regression model. Results: In AS patients, 29 patients (29.3%) exhibited an upgrade in Gleason score (GS) after TTMB. Among them, 22 patients (75.9%) showed at the anterior or apex lesions. In patients with previous negative TRUS-Bx, 18 patients (30.0%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Among them, 13 patients (72.2%) exhibited cancer at the anterior or apex lesion. Among the 25 AS patients with PI-RADSTM score 1–2, 5 patients (20.0%) showed an upgrade in GS. Among the 26 patients with previous negative TRUS-Bx and PI-RADSTM score 1–2, 6 patients (23.1%) had cancer. In multivariate regression model, prostate volume (OR 0.951) was identified as the predictor for a positive biopsy result after TTMB with previous negative TRUS-Bx. Conclusions: TTMB is efficient for patients on AS in the detection of upgraded cancer located in anterior or apex or those with previous negative TRUS-Bx in the detection of anterior or apex cancer. In PI-RADSTM score 1–2, a substantial proportion of patients after experienced upgrade in GS on AS patients or cancer detection on previous negative TRUS-Bx. Moreover, we identified prostate volume is the independent predictor for a positive biopsy result after TTMB with previous negative TRUS-Bx.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Transperineal, Transrectal ultrasound, Prostate biopsy, Active surveillance
1.
Song W, Jeon HG. Incidence of kidney, bladder, and prostate cancers in Korea: an update.
Korean J Urol
. 2015 Jun;56(6):422–8.
2.
Numao N, Kawakami S, Sakura M, Yoshida S, Koga F, Saito K, et al. Characteristics and clinical significance of prostate cancers missed by initial transrectal 12-core biopsy.
BJU Int
. 2012 Mar;109(5):665–71.
3.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU--ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.
Eur Urol
. 2017 Apr;71(4):618–29.
4.
Gershman B, Zietman AL, Feldman AS, McDougal WS. Transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy for patients with persistently elevated PSA and multiple prior negative biopsies.
Urol Oncol
. 2013 Oct;31(7):1093–7.
5.
Nafie S, Pal RP, Dormer JP, Khan MA. Transperineal template prostate biopsies in men with raised PSA despite two previous sets of negative TRUS-guided prostate biopsies.
World J Urol
. 2014 Aug;32(4):971–5.
6.
Muthuveloe D, Telford R, Viney R, Patel P. The detection and upgrade rates of prostate adenocarcinoma following transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy – a tertiary referral centre experience.
Cent European J Urol
. 2016;69(1):42–7.
7.
Ong WL, Weerakoon M, Huang S, Paul E, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, et al. Transperineal biopsy prostate cancer detection in first biopsy and repeat biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: the Victorian Transperineal Biopsy Collaboration experience.
BJU Int
. 2015 Oct;116(4):568–76.
8.
Hirobe M, Tanaka T, Shindo T, Ichihara K, Hotta H, Takahashi A, et al. Complications within 90 days after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study in Japan.
Int J Clin Oncol
. 2018 Aug;23(4):734–41.
9.
Mai Z, Yan W, Zhou Y, Zhou Z, Chen J, Xiao Y, et al. Transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy: 10 years of experience.
BJU Int
. 2016 Mar;117(3):424–9.
10.
Symons JL, Huo A, Yuen CL, Haynes AM, Matthews J, Sutherland RL, et al. Outcomes of transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy in 409 patients.
BJU Int
. 2013 Sep;112(5):585–93.
11.
Ayres BE, Montgomery BS, Barber NJ, Pereira N, Langley SE, Denham P, et al. The role of transperineal template prostate biopsies in restaging men with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance.
BJU Int
. 2012 Apr;109(8):1170–6.
12.
Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, Charman SC, Anastasiadis E, Freeman A, et al. The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level–can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer?
Urol Oncol
. 2014 Jan;32(1):45.e17–22.
13.
Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, et al. Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Eur Urol
. 2015 Dec;68(6):1045–53.
14.
Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, Cossu M, Bollito E, Veltri A, et al. Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer.
Eur Urol
. 2017 Aug;72(2):282–8.
15.
Sivaraman A, Sanchez-Salas R, Ahmed HU, Barret E, Cathala N, Mombet A, et al. Clinical utility of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate after negative magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal biopsy.
Urol Oncol
. 2015 Jul;33(7):329.e7–11.
16.
Voss J, Pal R, Ahmed S, Hannah M, Jaulim A, Walton T. Utility of early transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy for risk stratification in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer.
BJU Int
. 2018 Jun;121(6):863–70.
17.
Schouten MG, van der Leest M, Pokorny M, Hoogenboom M, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC, et al. Why and Where do We Miss Significant Prostate Cancer with Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging followed by Magnetic Resonance-guided and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men?
Eur Urol
. 2017 Jun;71(6):896–903.
18.
Serrao EM, Barrett T, Wadhwa K, Parashar D, Frey J, Koo BC, et al. Investigating the ability of multiparametric MRI to exclude significant prostate cancer prior to transperineal biopsy.
Can Urol Assoc J
. 2015 Nov-Dec;9(11–12):E853–8.
19.
Kuru TH, Wadhwa K, Chang RT, Echeverria LM, Roethke M, Polson A, 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.
BJU Int
. 2013 Sep;112(5):568–77.
20.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al.; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.
Eur Radiol
. 2012 Apr;22(4):746–57.
21.
Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, Bernardo M, Greer MD, Mertan FV, et al. What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate.
Radiology
. 2018 Jan;286(1):186–95.
22.
Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, Ryniker L, Turkbey B, Kavoussi LR, et al. In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy?
BJU Int
. 2015 Apr;115(4):562–70.
23.
Nassiri N, Chang E, Lieu P, Priester AM, Margolis DJ, Huang J, et al. Focal Therapy Eligibility Determined by Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.
J Urol
. 2018 Feb;199(2):453–8.
24.
Lian H, Zhuang J, Wang W, Zhang B, Shi J, Li D, et al. Assessment of free-hand transperineal targeted prostate biopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion in Chinese men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.
BMC Urol
. 2017 Jul;17(1):52.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.