Introduction: Saturation prostate biopsy (SPBx) has been initially introduced to improve prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate (DR) in the repeat setting. Nevertheless, the optimal number and the most appropriate location of the cores, together with the timing to perform a second PBx and the eventual modification of the PBx protocols according to the different clinical situations, are matters of debate. The aim of this review is to perform a critical analysis of the literature about the actual role of SPBx in the repeat setting. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature since 1995 up to 2011. Electronic searches were limited to the English language, using the MEDLINE database. The key words ‘saturation prostate biopsy’ and ‘repeated prostate biopsy’ were used. Results: SPBx improves PCa DR if clinical suspicion persists after previous biopsy with negative findings and provides an accurate prediction of prostate tumor volume and grade, even if the issue about the number and locations of the cores is still a matter of debate. Conclusions: At present, SPBx seems to be really necessary in men with persistent suspicion of PCa after negative initial biopsy and probably in patients with a multifocal high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical small acinar proliferation. In the remaining situations, adopting an individualized scheme is preferable.

Keywords:
Saturation prostate biopsy, Repeated prostate biopsy, Prostate cancer
1.
Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM: Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 2001;166:86–92.
2.
Borboroglu PG, Corner SW, Riffenburgh RH, Amling CL: Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patient with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol 2000;163:158–162.
3.
Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Lilja H, Zappa M, et al: Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1320–1328.
4.
Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Gelmann EP, Kvale PA, Reding DJ, et al: Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1310–1319.
5.
Astraldi A: Diagnosis of cancer of the prostate: biopsy by rectal route. Urol Cutan Rev 1937;41:421.
6.
Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA: Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989;142:71–75.
7.
Patel AR, Jones JS, Rabets J, DeOreo G, Zippe CD: Parasagittal biopsies add minimal information in repeat saturation prostate biopsy. Urology 2004;63:87–89.
8.
Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG: Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol 2008;10:262–279.
9.
Bertaccini A, Fandella A, Prayer-Galetti T, et al: Systematic development of clinical practice guidelines for prostate biopsies: a 3-year Italian project. Anticancer Res 2007;27:659–666.
10.
Nash PA, Bruce JE, Indudhara R, et al: Transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic nerve blockade eases systematic needle biopsy of the prostate. J Urol 1996;155:607–609.
11.
Crundwell MC, Cooke RW, Wallace DM: Patients’ tolerance of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: an audit of 104 cases. BJU Int 1999;83:107.
12.
Lane BR, Zippe CD, Abouassaly A, Schoenfield L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Jones JS: Saturation technique does not decrease cancer detection during follow-up after initial prostate biopsy. J Urol 2008;179:1749–1750.
13.
Jones JS: Saturation biopsy for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007;99:1340–1344.
14.
Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE, Ornsetin DK, Catalona WJ: A prospective randomised trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact of cancer detection. J Urol 2000;164:388.
15.
Gore Jl, Shariat S, Miles BJ, et al: Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;165:1554–1559.
16.
Siu W, Dunn RL, Shah RB, et al: Use of extended pattern technique for initial prostate biopsy. J Urol 2005;174:505–509.
17.
Singh H, Canto EI, Shariat SF, et al: Improved detection of clinically significant, curable prostate cancer with systematic 12-core biopsy. J Urol 2004;171:1089–1092.
18.
De la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, et al: Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 2003;61:1181–1186.
19.
Presti JC Jr, O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, et al: Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increases cancer detection rates and minimizes variance in prostate-specific antigen and age-related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol 2003;169:125–129.
20.
Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, et al: Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 2006;175:1605–1612.
21.
Pelzer AE, Bektic J, Berger AP, et al: Are transition zone biopsies still necessary to improve prostate cancer detection? Results from the Tyrol screening project. Eur Urol 2005;48:916–921.
22.
Peyromaure M, Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod L: The role of the biopsy of the transitional zone and of the seminal vesicles in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2002;1(suppl): 40–46.
23.
Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sauvageot J, Carter HB: Use of repeat sextant and transition zone biopsies for assessing extent of prostate cancer. J Urol 1997;158:1886–1890.
24.
Takenaka A, Hara R, Hyodo Y, et al: Transperineal extended biopsy improves the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate: a comparative study of 6 and 12 biopsy cores. Int J Urol 2006;13:10–14.
25.
Li H, Yan W, Zhou Y, et al: Transperineal ultrasound-guided saturation biopsies using 11-region template of prostate: report of 303 cases. Urology 2007;70:1157–1161.
26.
Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A, Scattoni V, Raber M, Roscigno M, Suardi N, Gallina A, Artibani W, Ficarra V, Cestari A, Guazzoni G, Rigatti P, Montorsi F: Transrectal versus transperineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection rate? Urology 2011;77:921–925.
27.
Watanabe M, Hayashi T, Tsushima T, et al: Extensive biopsy using a combined transperineal and transrectal approach to improve prostate cancer detection. Int J Urol 2005;12:969–963.
28.
Emiliozzi P, Maymone S, Paterno A, et al: Increased accuracy of biopsy Gleason score obtained by extended needle biopsy. J Urol 2004;172:2224–2226.
29.
Campos-Fernandes JL, Bastien L, Nicolaiew N, Robert G, Terry S, Vacherot F, Salomon L, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A et al: Prostate cancer detection rate in patients with repeated extended 21-sample needle biopsy. Eur Urol 2009;55:600–606.
30.
Pepe P, Galia A, Fraggetta F, et al: Prediction by quantitative histology on pathological stage in prostate cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;31:309–313.
31.
Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, Joniau S, Matveev VB, Schmid HP, Zattoni F: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008;53:68–80.
32.
Epstein JI, Herawi M: Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 2006;175:820–834.
33.
Gallo F, Chiono L, Gastaldi E, Venturino E, Giberti C: Prognostic significance of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN): risk of prostatic cancer on repeat biopsies. Urology 2008;72:628–632.
34.
Gokden N, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ, Humphrey PA: High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in needle biopsy as risk factor for detection of adenocarcinoma: current level of risk in screening population. Urology 2005;65:538–542.
35.
Bishara T, Ramnani DM, Epstein JI: High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on needle biopsy: risk of cancer on repeat biopsy related to number of involved cores and morphologic pattern. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28:629–633.
36.
Benecchi L, Pieri AM, Melissari M, Potenzoni M, Pastizzaro CD: A novel nomogram to predict the probability of prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. J Urol 2008;180:146–149.
37.
Rochester MA, Pashayan N, Matthews F, Doble A, McLoughlin J: Development and validation of risk score for predicting positive repeat prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy in a UK population. BMC Urol 2009;9:7.
38.
Netto GJ, Epstein JI: Widespread high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on prostatic needle biopsy: a significant likelihood of subsequently diagnosed adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2006;30:1184–1188.
39.
Godoy G, Huang GJ, Patel T, Taneja SS: Long-term follow-up of men with isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia followed by serial delayed interval biopsy. Urology 2011;77:669–674.
40.
Merrimen JL, Jones G, Srigley JR: Is high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia still a risk factor for adenocarcinoma in the era of extended biopsy sampling? Pathology 2010;42:325–329.
41.
Lee MC, Moussa AS, Yu C, Kattan MW, Magi-Galluzzi C, Jones JS: Multifocal high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a risk factor for subsequent prostate cancer. J Urol 2010;184:1958–1962.
42.
Roscigno M, Scattoni V, Freschi M, Abdollah F, Maccagnano C, Galosi A, Lacetera V, Montironi R, Muzzonigro G, Deho F, Deiana G, Belussi D, Chinaglia D, Montorsi F, Da Pozzo LF: Diagnosis of isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: proposal of a nomogram for the prediction of cancer detection at saturation re-biopsy. BJU Int 2012;109:1329–1334.
43.
Chan TY, Epstein JI: Follow-up of atypical prostate needle biopsies suspicious for cancer. Urology 1999;53:351–355.
44.
Abouassaly N, Tan A, Moussa AS, Jones JS: Risk of prostate cancer after diagnosis of atypical glands suspicious for carcinoma on saturation and traditional biopsies. J Urol 2008;180:911–914.
45.
Wolters T, van der Kwast TH, Vissers CJ, Bangma CH, Roobol M, Schröder FH, van Leenders GJ: False-negative prostate needle biopsies: frequency, histopathologic features, and follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 2010;34:35–43.
46.
Levy DA, Jones JS: Management of rising prostate-specific antigen after a negative biopsy. Curr Urol Rep 2011;12:197–202.
47.
Abouassaly R, Lane BR, Jones JS: Staging saturation biopsy in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance protocol. Urology 2008;71:573–577.
48.
Allen EA, Kahane H, Epstein JI: Repeat biopsy strategies for men with atypical diagnoses on initial prostate needle biopsy. Urology 1998;52:803–807.
49.
Scattoni V, Raber M, Abdollah F, et al: Biopsy schemes with the fewest cores for detecting 95% of the prostate cancers detected by a 24-core biopsy. Eur Urol 2010;57:1–8.
50.
Rabets JC, Jones JS, Patel A, et al: Prostate cancer detection with office-based saturation biopsy in a repeat biopsy population. J Urol 2004;172:94–97.
51.
Chun FK, Epstein JR, Ficarra V, Freedland SJ, Montironi R, Montorsi F, Shariat SF, Schroder F, Scattoni V: Optimizing performance and interpretation of prostate biopsy: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 2010;58:851–864.
52.
Chrouser KL, Lieber MM: Extended and saturation needle biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2004;5:226–230.
53.
Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD: Pathological upgrading and upstaging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008;180:1964–1968.
54.
Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Feng Z, Parnes HL, Coltman CA Jr: Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:529–534.
55.
Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F: Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 2007;52:1309–1322.
56.
Al Otaibi M, Ross P, Fahmy N, Jeyaganth S, Trottier H, Sircar K, Bégin LR, Souhami L, Kassouf W, Aprikian A, Tanguay S: Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Cancer 2008;113:286–292.
57.
Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW: Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 2004;101:2001–2005.
58.
Barqawi AB, Crawford ED: The current use and future trends of focal surgical therapy in the management of localized prostate cancer. Cancer J 2007;13:313–317.
59.
Mouraviev V, Mayes JM, Sun L, Madden JF, Moul JW, Polascik TJ: Prostate cancer laterality as a rationale of focal ablative therapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. Cancer 2007;110:906–910.
60.
Polascik TJ, Mayes JM, Sun L, Madden JF, Moul JW, Mouraviev V: Pathologic stage T2a and T2b prostate cancer in the recent prostate-specific antigen era: implications for unilateral ablative therapy. Prostate 2008;68:1380–1386.
61.
Onik G, Narayan P, Vaughan D, Dineen M, Brunelle R: Focal ‘nerve-sparing’ cryosurgery for treatment of primary prostate cancer: a new approach to preserving potency. Urology 2002;60:109–114.
62.
Epstein JI, Sanderson H, Carter HB, et al: Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2005;66:356–360.
63.
Warlick C, Trock BJ, Landis B, et al: Delayed versus immediate surgical intervention and prostate cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:355–357.
64.
Shandera KC, Thibault GP, Deshon JE, et al: Variability in patient preparation for prostate biopsy among American urologists. Urology 1998;52:644–646.
65.
Falzarano SM, Zhou M, Hernandez AV, Moussa AS, Jones JS, Magi-Galluzzi C: Can saturation biopsy predict prostate cancer localization in radical prostatectomy specimens: a correlative study and implications for focal therapy. Urology 2010;76:682–687.
66.
Jones JS: Saturation biopsy for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007;99:1340–1344.
67.
Gallina A, Chun FK, Suardi N, Eastham JA, Perrotte P, Graefen M, Hutterer G, Huland H, Klein EA, Reuther A, et al: Comparison of stage migration patterns between Europe and the USA: an analysis of 11,350 men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008;101:1513–1518.
68.
Hogarth RM, Karelaia N: Heuristic and linear models of judgment: matching rules and environments. Psychol Rev 2007;114:733–758.
69.
Scattoni V, Raber M, Capitanio U, Abdollah F, Roscigno M, Angiolilli D, Maccagnano C, Gallina A, Saccà A, Freschi M, Doglioni C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F: The optimal rebiopsy prostatic scheme depends on patient clinical characteristics: results of a recursive partitioning analysis based on a 24-core systematic scheme. Eur Urol 2011;60:834–841.
70.
Takashima R, Egawa S, Kuwao S, Baba S: Anterior distribution of stage T1c nonpalpable tumors in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2002;59:692–697.
71.
Moussa AS, Meshref A, Schoenfield L, Masoud A, Abdel-Rahman S, Li J, Flazoura S, Magi-Galluzzi C, Fergany A, Fareed K, Jones JS: Importance of additional ‘extreme’ anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer. Urology 2010;75:1034–1039.
72.
Bott L, Langley S, Hindley L, Montgomery B: Intensifying the saturation biopsy technique for detecting prostate cancer after previous negative biopsies. A step in the wrong direction. BJU Int 2009;103:701.
73.
Bouyé S, Potiron E, Puech P, Leroy X, Lemaitre L, Villers A: Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: zones of origin and intraprostatic pattern of spread at histopathology. Prostate 2009;69:105–113.
74.
Ching CB, Moussa AS, Li J, Lane BR, Zippe C, Jones JS: Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End-fire versus side-fire probe prostate cancer detection rates. J Urol 2009;181:2077–2083.
75.
Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R, Carroll PR, Wirth M, Grimm MO, Bjartell AS, Montorsi F, Freedland SJ, Erbersdobler A, van der Kwast TH: The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;60:291–303.
76.
Raber M, Scattoni V, Gallina A, Freschi M, De Almeyda EP, Girolamo VD, Montorsi F, Rigatti P: Does the transrectal ultrasound probe influence prostate cancer detection in patients undergoing an extended prostate biopsy scheme? Results of a large retrospective study. BJU Int 2012;109:672–677.
77.
Sajadi KP, Kim T, Terris MK, Brown JA, Lewis RW: High yield of saturation prostate biopsy for patients with previous negative biopsies and small prostates. Urology 2007;70:691–695.
78.
Rietbergen JB, Hoedemaeker RF, Kruger AE, Kirkels WJ, Schröder FH: The changing pattern of prostate cancer at the time of diagnosis: characteristics of screen detected prostate cancer in a population-based screening study. J Urol 1999;161:1192–1198.
79.
Naughton CK, Smith DS, Humphrey PA, Catalona WJ, Keetch DW: Clinical and pathologic tumor characteristics of prostate cancer as a function of the number of biopsy cores: a retrospective study. Urology 1998;52:808–813.
80.
Zaytoun OM, Moussa AS, Gao T, Fareed K, Jones JS: Office-based transrectal saturation biopsy improves prostate cancer detection compared to extended biopsy in the repeat biopsy population. J Urol 2011;186:850–854.
81.
Shah JB, McKiernan JM, Elkin EP, Carroll PR, Meng MV; CaPSURE Investigators: Prostate biopsy patterns in the CaPSURE database: evolution with time and impact on outcome after prostatectomy. J Urol 2008;179:136–140.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
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.