Schema and cancer detection rates for transperineal prostate biopsy templates: a review

Preventing Infectious Complications Following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Alternative Approaches to Transrectal Biopsy with Empirical Antibiotic Prophylaxis Therapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Prostate biopsy, conducted frequently through the transrectal route, is associated with significant risks of infectious complications. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of various strategies to reduce these complications, using a network meta-analysis approach.

METHODS

Our study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane database as of March 1, 2024. We included studies that involved adults undergoing transrectal or transperineal prostate biopsy with either standard empirical antibiotic prophylaxis or alternative interventions. The primary outcomes were assessment of sepsis, fever, urinary tract infections (UTIs), and readmissions. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024532225).

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Our search yielded 28 RCTs eligible for analysis, encompassing a total of 10 179 participants. Rectal cleansing had the highest rankogram score to reduce infectious complications such as sepsis (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval [0.28-0.58]; rankogram, p score = 0.917), followed by transperineal biopsy (p score = 0.496). The overall analysis also highlighted a lower incidence of UTIs and readmissions with this method. Heterogeneity among studies was minimal (I2 < 50% for all outcomes).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Rectal cleansing might be the most effective strategy to reduce infectious complications following transrectal prostate biopsy and could be more effective than rectal culture-based antibiotic prophylaxis and transperineal biopsy. Given the indirect nature of our comparisons, further RCTs are needed to determine the safest approach for prostate biopsy, particularly between transperineal biopsy and transrectal biopsy with rectal cleansing or rectal culture-based antibiotic prophylaxis.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this review, we analyzed different techniques to reduce infectious complications after a prostate biopsy. We found that rectal cleansing prior to performing a transrectal prostate biopsy reduced infectious complications and might be the most effective strategy. We conclude that either transperineal or transrectal prostate biopsies are acceptable approaches, albeit with rectal cleansing or rectal culture-based antibiotic prophylaxis, respectively.

Biopsy strategies in the era of mpMRI: a comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Since its initial description the prostate biopsy technique for detection of prostate cancer (PCA) has constantly evolved. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been proven to have a sensitivity exceeding 90% to detect the index lesion. This narrative review discusses the evidence around several biopsy strategies, especially in the context of patients that might be eligible for focal therapy.

METHOD

A non-systematic literature research was performed on February 15th 2024 using the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline), Web of Science and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

The transrectal (TR) route is associated with an increased postoperative sepsis rate, even with adequate antibiotic prophylaxis. The transperineal (TP) route is now recommended by international guidelines, firstly for its decreased rate of urosepsis. Recent evidence shows a non-inferiority of TP compared to TR route, and even a higher detection rate of clinically significant PCA (csPCA) in the anterior and apical region, that are usually difficult to target using the TR route. Several targeting techniques (cognitive, software-fusion or in-bore) enhance our ability to provide an accurate risk assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness and burden, while reducing the number of cores and reducing the number of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ciPCA). While MRI-TB have proven their role, the role of systematic biopsies (SB) is still important because it detects 5-16% of csPCA that would have been missed by MRI-TB alone. The strategies of SB depend mainly on the route used (TR vs. TP) and the number of cores to be collected (10-12 cores vs. saturation biopsies vs. trans-perineal template mapping-biopsies or Ginsburg Protocol vs. regional biopsies).

CONCLUSION

Several biopsy strategies have been described and should be known when assessing patients for focal therapy. Because MRI systematically under evaluates the lesion size, systematic biopsies, and especially perilesional biopsies, can help to increase sensitivity at the cost of an increased number of cores.

Evaluation of Recurrent Disease after Radiation Therapy for Patients Considering Local Salvage Therapy: Past vs. Contemporary Management

Recurrent prostate cancer after primary treatment with radiation therapy is a common problem. Patients with localized recurrence may benefit from salvage therapy, but careful patient selection is crucial because not all patients will benefit from local salvage therapy, and salvage therapy has increased morbidity compared to primary treatments for prostate cancer. This review aims to provide an overview of the evaluation of patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy and how it is continuing to evolve with increasing data on outcomes, as well as improving technologies and techniques. Our enhanced understanding of treatment outcomes and risk stratification has influenced the identification of patients who may benefit from local salvage treatment. Advances in imaging and biopsy techniques have enhanced the accuracy of locating the recurrence, which affects treatment decisions. Additionally, the growing interest in image-targeted ablative therapies that have less morbidity and complications than whole-gland therapies for suitable patients influences the evaluation process for those considering focal salvage therapy. Although significant changes have been made in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with recurrent disease after radiation therapy, it remains unclear whether these changes will ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Evaluating the Learning Curve for In-office Freehand Cognitive Fusion Transperineal Prostate Biopsy

OBJECTIVE

To define the learning curve of the in-office, freehand MRI-ultrasound cognitive fusion transperineal prostate biopsy (CTPB) by assessing cancer detection, biopsy core quantity and quality, procedure times, and complications over the initial experience.

METHODS

We reviewed 110 consecutive CTPB performed March 2021-September 2022 by a urologist inexperienced with the PrecisionPoint platform. The study period was divided into quarters to assess for temporal variation in outcomes. Univariable and multivariable analysis modeled the learning curve.

RESULTS

Across quarters, there were no differences in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Q1:50%, Q2:52%, Q3:50%, Q4:48%, P > .9) or Gleason grade group upgrading by targeted vs systematic biopsy (P = .6). Median procedure times improved with experience (Q1:17 minutes, Q2:14 minutes, Q3:12 minutes, Q4:13 minutes, P = .018). On multivariable analysis, procedure times decreased by 1minute per 20 cases (P < .001). On linear regression, CTPB procedure times approximated transrectal biopsy times after 90 cases (P < .001). The histopathologic core quality did not differ, as evidenced by consistent core length (P = .13) and presence of minimal fibromuscular tissue (P > .9). The most common complications, hematuria and hematospermia, were similar across quarters (P = .7, P = .3, respectively). There was a single episode of urinary retention and no reported infections.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence of a learning curve for CTPB as shown by consistent clinically significant prostate cancer detection, high-quality biopsy cores, and low complications. However, CTPB procedural times begin to approximate cognitive targeted transrectal biopsy times after 90 cases.

MRI-informed prostate biopsy: What the radiologist should know on quality in biopsy planning and biopsy acquisition

Quality is currently recognized as the pre-requisite for delivering the clinical benefits expected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-informed prostate biopsy (MRI-i-PB) in patients with a suspicion for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The "quality chain" underlying MRI-i-PB is multidisciplinary in nature, and depends on several factors related to the patient, imaging technique, image interpretation and biopsy procedure. This review aims at making the radiologist aware of biopsy-related factors impacting on MRI-i-PB quality, both in terms of biopsy planning (threshold for biopsy decisions, association with systematic biopsy and number of targeted cores) and biopsy acquisition (biopsy route, targeting technique, and operator's experience). While there is still space for improvement and better standardization of several biopsy-related procedures, current evidence suggests that high-quality MRI-i-PB can be delivered by acquiring and increased the number of biopsy cores targeted to suspicious imaging findings and perilesional area ("focal saturation biopsy"). On the other hand, uncertainty still exists as to whether software-assisted fusion of MRI and transrectal ultrasound images can outperform cognitive fusion strategy. The role for operator's experience and quality assurance/quality control procedures are also discussed.