Objective: This study is a prospective evaluation of a volume-based, computer-assisted method for transperineal optimized prostate (TOP) biopsy. The TOP algorithm automates core planning for systematic prostate biopsies using the 3-dimensional organ contour and an alterable volume for tumors to be excluded. Subjects and Methods: MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy with MRI-targeted biopsies (TBs) and systematic-TOP biopsies were performed on 172 men between October 2013 and March 2014. Systematic biopsies were placed according to TOP for detection of tumor volumes >0.5 mL with a minimum of 80% organ coverage in prostates up to 50 mL (70% in larger organs). Results: Median 24 TOP cores and 3 MRI-TBs have been placed. Prostate cancer (PCa) was detected in 112 of 172 (65%) of men; TOP detected 109 (97%) and TB 62 (55%). Significant cancer (Gleason score ≥7) was detected in 75 (44%) of men and of these TOP detected 73 of 75 (97%) and TB 51 of 75 (68%). Overall, systematic-TOP sampling significantly outperformed TB for the detection of both, all PCa as well as significant PCa (p < 0.0001, p = 0.0005). Conclusion: The TOP method is innovative by integrating the individual prostate volume and PCa volume detection thresholds. In the present cohort, it diagnosed more significant tumors than TB alone. However, at the same time, more low-risk tumors are detected.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Prostate biopsy, Transperineal biopsy, Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy, Transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy
1.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389:815-822.
2.
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al: Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015;313:390-397.
3.
Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Wysock JS, et al: Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol 2016;69:512-517.
4.
Delongchamps NB, Lefèvre A, Bouazza N, Beuvon F, Legman P, Cornud F: Detection of significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance targeted biopsies - should transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided biopsies alone be a standard of care? J Urol 2015;193:1198-1204.
5.
Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Kesch C, et al: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 2016;70:846-853.
6.
Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Lieu P, Dorey FJ, et al: Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 2016;122:884-892.
7.
Irani J, Blanchet P, Salomon L, Coloby P, Hubert J, Malavaud B, et al: Is an extended 20-core prostate biopsy protocol more efficient than the standard 12-core? A randomized multicenter trial. J Urol;190:77-83.
8.
Wright JL, Ellis WJ: Improved prostate cancer detection with anterior apical prostate biopsies. Urol Oncol 2006;24:492-495.
9.
Hossack T, Patel MI, Huo A, Brenner P, Yuen C, Spernat D, et al: 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.
Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F, Colecchia M, Aragona F: Detection rate of anterior prostate cancer in 226 patients submitted to initial and repeat transperineal biopsy. Urol Int 2014;93:189-192.
11.
Dieffenbacher SC, Popeneciu IV, Radtke JP, Teber D, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA, Hatiboglu G: Diagnostic accuracy of transperineal MRI fusion biopsy in comparison to transrectal biopsy with regard to incidental histopathological findings in transurethral resection of the prostate. Urol Int 2017, Epub ahead of print.
12.
Crawford ED, Wilson SS, Torkko KC, Hirano D, Stewart JS, Brammell C, et al: Clinical staging of prostate cancer: a computer-simulated study of transperineal prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2005;96:999-1004.
13.
Valerio M, Anele C, Charman SC, van der Meulen J, Freeman A, Jameson C, et al: Transperineal template prostate-mapping biopsies: an evaluation of different protocols in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2016;118:384-390.
14.
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;112:568-577.
15.
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Fütterer JJ, Gill IS, et al: Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 2013;64:544-552.
16.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
17.
Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C, Rieker P, Popeneciu IV, Simpfendörfer T, et al: A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol 2011;186:2214-2220.
18.
van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, et al: International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol 2011;24:16-25.
19.
Tango T: Equivalence test and confidence interval for the difference in proportions for the paired-sample design. Stat Med 1998;17:891-908.
20.
Bittner N, Merrick GS, Bennett A, Butler WM, Andreini HJ, Taubenslag W, et al: Diagnostic performance of initial transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate gland. Am J Clin Oncol 2015;38:300-303.
21.
Vyas L, Acher P, Kinsella J, Challacombe B, Chang RT, Sturch P, et al: Indications, results and safety profile of transperineal sector biopsies (TPSB) of the prostate: a single centre experience of 634 cases. BJU Int 2014;114:32-37.
22.
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;112:585-593.
23.
Taira AV, Merrick GS, Bennett A, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Galbreath RW, et al: Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance. Am J Clin Oncol 2013;36:116-120.
24.
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;31:1093-1097.
25.
Ekwueme K, Simpson H, Zakhour H, Parr NJ: Transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy using a modified technique: outcome of 270 cases requiring repeat prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2013;111:E365-E373.
26.
Bittner N, Merrick GS, Butler WM, Bennett A, Galbreath RW: Incidence and pathological features of prostate cancer detected on transperineal template guided mapping biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. J Urol 2013;190:509-514.
27.
Mabjeesh NJ, Lidawi G, Chen J, German L, Matzkin H: High detection rate of significant prostate tumours in anterior zones using transperineal ultrasound-guided template saturation biopsy. BJU Int 2012;110:993-997.
28.
Pal RP, Elmussareh M, Chanawani M, Khan MA: The role of a standardized 36 core template-assisted transperineal prostate biopsy technique in patients with previously negative transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies. BJU Int 2012;109:367-371.
29.
Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A, Scattoni V, Raber M, Roscigno M, et al: Trans-rectal versus trans-perineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection rate? Urology 2011;77:921-925.
30.
Lecornet E, Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Moore CM, Nevoux P, Barratt D, et al: The accuracy of different biopsy strategies for the detection of clinically important prostate cancer: a computer simulation. J Urol 2012;188:974-980.
31.
Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, Maroni PD, Werahera PN, Baer CA, et al: Clinical-pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 2013;73:778-787.
32.
Wadhwa K, Carmona-Echeveria L, Kuru T, Gaziev G, Serrao E, Parashar D, et al: Transperineal prostate biopsies for diagnosis of prostate cancer are well tolerated: a prospective study using patient-reported outcome measures. Asian J Androl 2017;1:62-66.
33.
Sarkar D, Ekwueme K, Parr N: Patient-reported experience of modified transperineal template guided saturation biopsy under general anaesthesia and without prophylactic catheterisation. Urol Int 2016;96:479-483.
34.
Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, et al: Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int 2016;118:35-43.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
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.