Objective: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of transperineal MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy vs. transrectal prostate biopsy in transurethral resection (TUR) specimen of men undergoing TUR of the prostate (TURP) for symptomatic bladder outlet obstruction. Material and Methods: From a database of 3,509 men receiving prostate biopsy, all those undergoing TURP and negative prostate biopsy (n = 95; 45 transrectal, 50 transperineal fusion) were analysed. TURP specimens were compared with regard to incidental prostate cancer. Results: Pre- and peri-interventional parameters in transrectal vs. fusion biopsy groups for age (65.2 ± 7.8 vs. 65.5 ± 7.3 years; p = 0.84), prostate specific antigen (10.7 ± 8.5 vs. 10.9 ± 8.7 ng/mL; p = 0.93), preoperative prostate volume (72.5 ± 26.1 vs. 71.8 ± 28.1 mL; p = 0.91) and resected weight (43.7 ± 21.9 vs. 41.4 ± 20.7 g; p = 0.61) showed no significant differences. Analysing the TURP specimen, 5 incidental T1a prostate cancers were found (3 Gleason 3 + 3 = 6; 2 Gleason 3 + 4 = 7, all in the transrectal biopsy group). Although, more biopsy cores were obtained in the MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy group (26 cores [interquartile range, IQR 24-28] vs. 14 cores [IQR 12-24], p < 0.01), there was no statistical impact of the obtained number of cores (p = 0.9) on diagnostic accuracy. Statistical analyses revealed significantly better diagnostic accuracy favoring image-guided fusion biopsy (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Our findings showed that a combination of MRI-targeted and systematic transperineal prostate biopsy improves patient safety. This is associated with a combination of transperineal biopsy technique and pre-interventional MRI.

Keywords:
Transurethral resection of the prostate, Transperineal MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy, Prostate cancer, Diagnostic accuracy
1.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, et al: EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. 2015. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#5. (cited access date August 6, 2016).
2.
Guo LH, Wu R, Xu HX, et al: Comparison between ultrasound guided transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial. Sci Rep 2015;5:16089.
3.
Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, et al: 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.
4.
Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T, et al: A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008;11:134-138.
5.
Yuan J, Zhao H, Wu B: [Application value of diagnostic TURP for patients with serum PSA abnormality]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2013;19:999-1002.
6.
Bratt O: The difficult case in prostate cancer diagnosis - when is a “diagnostic TURP” indicated? Eur Urol 2006;49:769-771.
7.
Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R: Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) - incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 2006;50:969-979; discussion 980.
8.
de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM: Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:343-351.
9.
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al: Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015;313:390-397.
10.
Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol 2015;33:17.e1-e7.
11.
Klein J, de Gorski A, Benamran D, et al: Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy for cancer detection: performance of 2D-, 3D- and 3D-MRI fusion targeted techniques. Urol Int 2016;98:7-14.
12.
Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Quentin M, et al: Comparison of patient comfort between MR-guided in-bore and MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsies within a prospective randomized trial. World J Urol 2016;34:215-220.
13.
Wadhwa K, Carmona-Echeveria L, Kuru T, 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;19:62-66.
14.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
15.
Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C, et al: A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol 2011;186:2214-2220.
16.
Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, et al: Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol 2015;193:87-94.
17.
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al: Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013;63:597-603.
18.
Ravery V, Dominique S, Panhard X, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L, Boccon-Gibod L: The 20-core prostate biopsy protocol - a new gold standard? J Urol 2008;179:504-507.
19.
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG: Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;68:438-450.
20.
Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al: Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011;186:1818-1824.
21.
Faletti R, Battisti G, Discalzi A, et al: Can DW-MRI, with its ADC values, be a reliable predictor of biopsy outcome in patients with suspected prostate cancer? Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016;41:926-933.
22.
Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F, et al: Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results. BJU Int 2016;118:515-520.
23.
Graham J, Kirkbride P, Cann K, Hasler E, Prettyjohns M. NICE guideline, Prostate cancer: diagnosis and managment. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175/resources/prostate-cancer-diagnosis-and-management-35109753913285. (accessed September 10, 2016).
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.
Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al: Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 2016;122:884-892.
26.
Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 2015;67:787-794.
27.
Delongchamps NB, Lefevre 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.
28.
Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, 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.
29.
Junker D, Schafer G, Heidegger I, et al: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate: preliminary results of a prospective single-centre study. Urol Int 2015;94:313-318.
© 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.