Standards for prostate biopsy

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 155-161

  Bjurlin, Marc A ^a   Taneja, Samir S ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion; MR targeted biopsy; multiparametric MRI; prostate biopsy; visual estimation transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy

Indexed keywords

HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, INTERVENTIONAL; MALE; NEOPLASM STAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84894066789     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000031     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Welch HG, Fisher ES, Gottlieb DJ, Barry MJ. Detection of prostate cancer via biopsy in the Medicare-SEER population during the PSA era. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:1395-1400.
2. Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 2013;189:2039-2046. Literature review and summary of the American Urological Assocation White paper on the optimal biopsy technique and specimen handling.
3. Hong YM, Lai FC, Chon CH, et al. Impact of prior biopsy scheme on pathologic features of cancers detected on repeat biopsies. Urol Oncol 2004;22:7-10.
4. Serefoglu EC, Altinova S, Ugras NS, et al. How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? Can Urol Assoc J 2013;7:e293-e298.
5. Yacoub JH, Verma S, Moulton JS, et al. Imaging-guided prostate biopsy: conventional and emerging techniques. Radiographics 2012;32:819-837.
6. Siu W, Dunn RL, Shah RB, Wei JT. Use of extended pattern technique for initial prostate biopsy. J Urol 2005;174:505-509.
7. Resnick MJ, Lee DJ, Magerfleisch L, et al. Repeat prostate biopsy and the incremental risk of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. Urology 2011;77:548-552.
8. Zaytoun OM, Stephenson AJ, Fareed K, et al. When serial prostate biopsy is recommended: most cancers detected are clinically insignificant. BJU Int 2012;110:987-992.
9. Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997;157:199-202; discussion-3.
10. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol 2000;164:388-392.
11. Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol 2000;163:163-166.
12. Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K, et al. A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol 2000;163:152-157.
13. Elabbady AA, Khedr MM. Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol 2006;49:49-53.
14. Gore JL, Shariat SF, 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.
15. Philip J, Ragavan N, Desouza J, et al. Effect of peripheral biopsies in maximising early prostate cancer detection in 8-, 10- or 12-core biopsy regimens. BJU Int 2004;93:1218-1220.
16. Shim HB, Park HK, Lee SE, Ku JH. Optimal site and number of biopsy cores according to prostate volume prostate cancer detection in Korea. Urology 2007;69:902-906.
17. Scattoni V, Roscigno M, Raber M, et al. Initial extended transrectal prostate biopsy: are more prostate cancers detected with18cores than with12 cores? J Urol 2008;179:1327-1331.
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. Pepe P, Aragona F. Saturation prostate needle biopsy and prostate cancer detection at initial and repeat evaluation. Urology 2007;70:1131-1135.
20. Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield L, et al. Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol 2006;175:485-488.
21. Guichard G, Larre S, Gallina A, et al. Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 2007;52:430-435.
22. Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, Marchand C, et al. Prospective evaluation of an extended 21-core biopsy scheme as initial prostate cancer diagnostic strategy. Eur Urol 2014;65:154-161.
23. Bjurlin MA, Wysock JS, Taneja SS. Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications. Urol Clin North Am; In Press.
24. Meng MV, Elkin EP, Du Chane J, Carroll PR. Impact of increased number of biopsies on the nature of prostate cancer identified. J Urol 2006;176:63-68.
25. Rogatsch H, Horninger W, Volgger H, et al. Radical prostatectomy: the value of preoperative, individually labeled apical biopsies. J Urol 2000;164:754-757.
26. Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK, et al. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology 2006;67:379-383.
27. San Francisco IF, De Wolf WC, Rosen S, et al. Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;169:136-140.
28. Kahl P, Wolf S, Adam A, et al. Saturation biopsy improves preoperative Gleason scoring of prostate cancer. Pathol Res Pract 2009;205:259-264.
29. Singh H, Canto EI, Shariat SF, et al. Six additional systematic lateral cores enhance sextant biopsy prediction of pathological features at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2004;171:204-209.
30. Taneja SS, Penson DF, Epelbaum A, et al. Does site specific labeling of sextant biopsy cores predict the site of extracapsular extension in radical prostatectomy surgical specimen? J Urol 1999;162:1352-1357.
31. Naya Y, Ochiai A, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. A comparison of extended biopsy and sextant biopsy schemes for predicting the pathological stage of prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;171:2203-2208.
32. Tsuzuki T, Hernandez DJ, Aydin H, et al. Prediction of extraprostatic extension in the neurovascular bundle based on prostate needle biopsy pathology, serum prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. J Urol 2005;173:450-453.
33. Tombal B, Tajeddine N, Cosyns JP, et al. Does site-specific labelling and individual processing of sextant biopsies improve the accuracy of prostate biopsy in predicting pathological stage in patients with T1c prostate cancer? BJU Int 2002;89:543-548.
34. Badalament RA, Miller MC, Peller PA, et al. An algorithm for predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen level. J Urol 1996;156:1375-1380.
35. Touma NJ, Chin JL, Bella T, et al. Location of a positive biopsy as a predictor of surgical margin status and extraprostatic disease in radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2006;97:259-262.
36. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011;261:46-66.
37. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013;63:125-140. Systematic review concluding that MR-guided biopsy detects clinically significant prostate cancer in an equivalent number of men vs. standard biopsy while using fewer biopsies in fewer men, with a reduction in the diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer.
38. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011;108:E171-E178. Comparative study demonstrating that MRI-targeted biopsies resulted in increased detection accuracy of significant cancer, with fewer cores, and avoiding unnecessary diagnoses of nonsignificant cancers compared with extended systematic biopsies.
39. Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, et al. Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:W876-W881.
40. Numao N, Yoshida S, Komai Y, et al. Usefulness of prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190:502-508.
41. Lawrentschuk N, Fleshner N. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in targeting prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. BJU Int 2009;103:730-733.
42. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Euro Urol 2013. Examination of MR-US fusion-targeted biopsy improves cancer detection rate in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated PSA values.
43. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2012;188:1732-1738.
44. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, et al. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 2008;180:1964-1967; discussion 7-8.
45. Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013;119:3359-3366.
46. Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;189:860-866.
47. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:713-719. Prospective comparative study showing MR-US fusion-targeted biopy upgrades and detects higher Gleason score cancers than 12-core biopsy and preferentially detects higher-grade cancer while missing lower-grade tumors.
48. Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C, et al. A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating preinterventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol 2011;186:2214-2220.
49. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2011;186:1281-1285.
50. Miyagawa T, Ishikawa S, Kimura T, et al. Real-time virtual sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol 2010;17:855-860.
51. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS Trial. Eur Urol 2013. Comparative study demonstrating that MR-US fusion-targeted biopsy improves biopsy information yield compared with visual estimation-targeted biopsy.