Objective: To assess if a less extended biopsy in the transperineal approach is sufficient for detection of prostate cancer (PC) in patients with hypoechoic lesions. Methods: This was a prospective study of 167 consecutive patients with prostate hypoechoic lesion and who underwent transperineal ultrasound (TPUS)-guided 12-core and hypoechoic lesion core biopsy between January 2012 and February 2013. Results: PC was detected in 64.1% (107/167) of patients. The PC detection rate of the 12-core prostate biopsy scheme was the highest, but when including the hypoechoic lesion core, there was no difference between the 6- and 12-core schemes (all p > 0.05), irrespective of prostate volume or prostate-specific antigen levels (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: A more limited biopsy scheme could be sufficient for the detection of PC if the hypoechoic lesion is sampled.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Prostate biopsy, Prostate specific antigen, Transperineal ultrasound-guided biopsy, Diagnosis
1.
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69-90.
2.
Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:212-236.
3.
Grönberg H: Prostate cancer epidemiology. Lancet 2003;361:859-864.
4.
Borley N, Feneley MR: Prostate cancer: diagnosis and staging. Asian J Androl 2009;11:74-80.
5.
Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, Flanigan RC, deKernion JB, Ratliff TL, Kavoussi LR, Dalkin BL, et al: Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 1994;151:1283-1290.
6.
Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, Kondo N, Yokoyoma T, Miyaji Y, Nagai A: Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 2008;71:191-195.
7.
Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T, Fujii T, Jo Y, Nagai A, Fujisawa M: A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008;11:134-138.
8.
Kawakami S, Yamamoto S, Numao N, Ishikawa Y, Kihara K, Fukui I: Direct comparison between transrectal and transperineal extended prostate biopsy for the detection of cancer. Int J Urol 2007;14:719-724.
9.
Hossack T, Patel MI, Huo A, Brenner P, Yuen C, Spernat D, Mathews J, Haynes AM, Sutherland R, del Prado W, Stricker P: Location and pathological characteristics of cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens identified by transperineal biopsy compared to transrectal biopsy. J Urol 2012;188:781-785.
10.
Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA: Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989;142:71-74; discussion 74-75.
11.
Nesrallah L, Nesrallah A, Antunes AA, Leite KR, Srougi M: The role of extended prostate biopsy on prostate cancer detection rate: a study performed on the bench. Int Braz J Urol 2008;34:563-570; discussion 570-571.
12.
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.
13.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014;65:124-137.
14.
Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J: Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 2006;175:1605-1612.
15.
Gore JL, Shariat SF, Miles BJ, Kadmon D, Jiang N, Wheeler TM, Slawin KM: Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;165:1554-1559.
16.
Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Wolters T, van Leenders GJ, Schröder FH: The value of an additional hypoechoic lesion-directed biopsy core for detecting prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008;101:685-690.
17.
Noh TI, Shin YS, Shim JS, Yoon JH, Kim JH, Bae JH, Moon du G, Park JY: Are hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasonography a marker for clinically significant prostate cancer? Korean J Urol 2013;54:666-670.
18.
You HW, Jung SB, Jeon SH, Chang SG, Kim JI, Lim JW: Does the presence of hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasound suggest a poor prognosis for patients with localized prostate cancer? Korean J Urol 2013;54:11-14.
19.
Arrabal-Polo MA, Jiménez-Pacheco A, Mijan-Ortiz JL, Arrabal-Martín M, Valle-Díaz de la Guardia F, López-Carmona Pintado F, López-León VM, Merino-Salas S, Tinaut-Ranera J, Zuluaga-Gomez A: Relationship between biopsy Gleason score and radical prostatectomy specimen Gleason score in patients undergoing sextant vs 12 core biopsies. Arch Esp Urol 2010;63:791-796.
20.
Bigliocchi M, Marini M, Nofroni I, Perugia G, Shahabadi H, Ciccariello M: Prostate cancer detection rate of transrectal ultrasonography, digital rectal examination, and prostate-specific antigen: results of a five-year study of 6- versus 12-core transperineal prostate biopsy. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2007;59:395-402, 403-406.
21.
Emiliozzi P, Scarpone P, DePaula F, Pizzo M, Federico G, Pansadoro A, Martini M, Pansadoro V: The incidence of prostate cancer in men with prostate specific antigen greater than 4.0 ng/ml: a randomized study of 6 versus 12 core transperineal prostate biopsy. J Urol 2004;171:197-199.
22.
Emiliozzi P, Longhi S, Scarpone P, Pansadoro A, DePaula F, Pansadoro V: The value of a single biopsy with 12 transperineal cores for detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2001;166:845-850.
23.
Abd TT, Goodman M, Hall J, Ritenour CW, Petros JA, Marshall FF, Issa MM: Comparison of 12-core versus 8-core prostate biopsy: multivariate analysis of large series of US veterans. Urology 2011;77:541-547.
24.
Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE, Ornstein DK, Catalona WJ: A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol 2000;164:388-392.
25.
Nomikos M, Karyotis I, Phillipou P, Constadinides C, Delakas D: The implication of initial 24-core transrectal prostate biopsy protocol on the detection of significant prostate cancer and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Int Braz J Urol 2011;37:87-93; discussion 93.
26.
Fiset PO, Aprikian A, Brimo F: Length of prostate biopsy cores: does it impact cancer detection? Can J Urol 2013;20:6848-6853.
27.
Flanigan RC, Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, deKernion JB, Ratliff TL, Kavoussi LR, Dalkin BL, et al: Accuracy of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography in localizing prostate cancer. J Urol 1994;152(5 pt 1):1506-1509.
28.
Carter HB, Hamper UM, Sheth S, Sanders RC, Epstein JI, Walsh PC: Evaluation of transrectal ultrasound in the early detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 1989;142:1008-1010.
29.
Byar DP, Mostofi FK: Carcinoma of the prostate: prognostic evaluation of certain pathologic features in 208 radical prostatectomies. Examined by the step-section technique. Cancer 1972;30:5-13.
30.
McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA: Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 1988;12:897-906.
31.
Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C, Sofikerim M, Günay M, Ekici S, Ozen H: An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2004;45:444-448; discussion 448-449.
32.
Yamamoto S, Kin U, Nakamura K, Hamano M, Nishikawa Y, Takenouchi T, Maruoka M: Transperineal ultrasound-guided 12-core systematic biopsy of the prostate for patients with a prostate-specific antigen level of 2.5-20 ng/ml in Japan. Int J Clin Oncol 2005;10:117-121.
33.
Novara G, Boscolo-Berto R, Lamon C, Fracalanza S, Gardiman M, Artibani W, Ficarra V: Detection rate and factors predictive the presence of prostate cancer in patients undergoing ultrasonography-guided transperineal saturation biopsies of the prostate. BJU Int 2010;105:1242-1246.
34.
Djavan B, Zlotta AR, Ekane S, Remzi M, Kramer G, Roumeguère T, Etemad M, Wolfram R, Schulman CC, Marberger M: Is one set of sextant biopsies enough to rule out prostate cancer? Influence of transition and total prostate volumes on prostate cancer yield. Eur Urol 2000;38:218-224.
35.
Uzzo RG, Wei JT, Waldbaum RS, Perlmutter AP, Byrne JC, Vaughan ED Jr: The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. Urology 1995;46:831-836.
36.
Jiang J, Colli J, El-Galley R: A simple method for estimating the optimum number of prostate biopsy cores needed to maintain high cancer detection rates while minimizing unnecessary biopsy sampling. J Endourol 2010;24:143-147.
37.
Kapoor A, Kapoor A, Mahajan G, Sidhu BS: Real-time elastography in the detection of prostate cancer in patients with raised PSA level. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011;37:1374-1381.
38.
Brock M, von Bodman C, Sommerer F, Löppenberg B, Klein T, Deix T, Palisaar JR, Noldus J, Eggert T: Comparison of real-time elastography with grey-scale ultrasonography for detection of organ-confined prostate cancer and extra capsular extension: a prospective analysis using whole mount sections after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011;108(8 pt 2):E217-E222.
39.
Ito H, Kamoi K, Yokoyama K, Yamada K, Nishimura T: Visualization of prostate cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison with transrectal power Doppler ultrasound. Br J Radiol 2003;76:617-624.
40.
Ouzzane A, Puech P, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Nevoux P, Betrouni N, Haber GP, Villers A: Combined multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies improve anterior prostate cancer detection, staging, and grading. Urology 2011;78:1356-1362.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.