Transperineal Ultrasound-Guided 12-Core Prostate Biopsy: An Extended Approach to Diagnose Transition Zone Prostate Tumors (2024)

Abstract

Citation: Yao M-H, Zou L-L, Wu R, Guo L-H, Xu G, Xie J, et al. (2014) Transperineal Ultrasound-Guided 12-Core Prostate Biopsy: An Extended Approach to Diagnose Transition Zone Prostate Tumors. PLoS ONE 9(2): e89171. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089171

Editor: Masaru Katoh, National Cancer Center, Japan

Received: September 12, 2013; Accepted: January 16, 2014; Published: February 25, 2014

Copyright: © 2014 Yao et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Prostate cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer-related death among older men in developed countries [1] and is on the rise in developing countries including China. Its pathogenesis is poorly understood. Prostate cancer are often asymptomatic during the early stages of disease. Although PSA-based screening has resulted in a significant increase in the detection rate of PCa, its use remains controversial because elevated levels of PSA are not cancer specific. Moreover, clinically significant PCa can exist in men with relatively low PSA levels [2](Thompson et al, 2004). Besides the conventional digital rectal examination (DRE) and the controversy surrounding prostate specific antigen (PSA)-based screening, ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are the most common imaging technologies to screen for prostate cancer. US can visualize the prostate directly; and due to certain advantages— it is conducted in real-time, it is portable and economical— it is often used for biopsy guidance. MRI can provide more information about the properties of the tissue, such as enhancement and diffusion, that are valuable in the evaluation of tumor extent [3]. According to the guidelines of the European Association of Urology (EAU), among the main diagnostic tools to diagnose prostate cancer, the systematic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance is the preferred diagnostic method [4]. An ultrasound-guided biopsy uses either a transrectal or transperineal approach to access the prostate. Although both have been reported to have equal detection rates [5]–[7], the transperineal approach may be preferred under certain circ*mstances [8]. Even though few biomarkers exist, biopsy is the most successful diagnostic approach [9]. TPUS-guided biopsy provides uniform sampling of the entire prostate and a relatively high probability of clinical diagnosis [10]. However, the search for an improved biopsy technique, which includes a better diagnosis with relatively few complications, is ongoing [11]. Biopsy techniques that optimize the number of cores that are sampled, as well as their locations within the prostate gland, may be considered [12]. In this prospective analysis, we estimated the diagnostic yield of different biopsy schemes, analyzed the locations within the prostate of the carcinoma-positive cores identified during TPUS-guided extended biopsy, and evaluated the efficacy of TPUS-guided extended biopsy for detecting disease in various locations within the prostate gland.

Materials and Methods

Results

287 patients were enrolled in the study. Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics for all patients. 42.1% (121/287) patients tested positive for prostate cancer by 12-core biopsy; 37.6% (108/287) patients tested positive for prostate cancer by 10-core biopsy; and 21.6% (62/287) patients tested positive for prostate cancer by 6-core biopsy. Diagnostic yield among the three approaches was significantly different (p<0.01; Table 2). After the pathological examination, the Gleason score (GS) of each patient was obtained. The results show that 65 patients (53.8%) had a GS of 6; 44 patients (36.3%) had a GS of 7; and 12 patients (9.9%) had a GS of 8 to 10.

The cancer lesions of 121 patients were characterized by real-time ultrasonography. The maximal diameter of the lesion was less than 10 mm in 15 patients (12.4%); between 10 and 15 mm in 22 patients (18.2%); and greater than 15 mm in 24 patients (19.8%). Diffusion lesions were observed in 29 patients (24.0%), and the lesion was unobservable in 31 patients (25.6%).

There was no statistical difference in the diagnostic yield of carcinoma-positive cores sampled from the PZ by sextant biopsy compared to 10-core biopsy (p = 0.54, Table 3), which indicates that there is a uniform distribution of lesions in the PZ. There were no significant differences in diagnostic yield by 10-core and 12-core biopsy schemes when grouped by age, PSA levels, and DRE. When patients were grouped according to prostate volume (≤50 ml and >50 ml), 12-core biopsy diagnosed significantly more patients with carcinoma-positive cores in the TZ compared to 10-core biopsy (28.1 vs. 20.4%, Table 4).

Participants were similarly tolerant of procedural and post-procedural pain (VAS score of 0-3). Gross hematuria was observed in 21 patients (7.3%), hematuria with hematospermia in 8 patients (2.8%), urinary tract infection in 19 patients (6.6%), and acute urinary retention in 3 patients (1.0%). No serious biopsy hematoma or neurovascular injury occurred.

Discussion

Prostate cancer is the most common malignant tumor among older men [13]. According to a study [14], the median age of diagnosis of prostate cancer in the United States is more than 65 years. Prostate cancer reduces life expectancy and lowers quality-of-life[15], [16]. TPUS-guided biopsy is the preferred approach for prostate cancer diagnosis. The traditional sextant TPUS biopsy has a history of under-diagnosing a large number of patients [17]. It is likely that more cores should be sampled to increase the diagnostic yield. However, such approaches may lead to a greater number of biopsy-associated complications. It is essential to achieve a balance between diagnostic yield, the number of cores sampled, and the risk for complications.

Since its introduction by Hodge in 1989, sextant biopsy has been modified several times [18]. In particular, the sextant protocol fails to detect a large number of carcinomas in the PZ region of the prostate gland [19]. This observation prompted the Italian National Comprehensive Cancer Network to recommend the sampling of 4 cores from the lateral PZ in addition to the traditional sextant scheme [20]. In current practice, 10–12 cores are used as an extended biopsy approach [21], with minimal biopsy-related complications [22]. Previous reports of the results of the 12-core biopsy were based on the conventional sextant plus 6 cores in the peripheral zone. The detection rate ranged from 30.3% to 51% [23], [24]. Some researchers believe that there is no difference in the detection rate between a 6-core and 12-core biopsy [25], or between an 8-core and 12-core biopsy [26], while other researchers believe that adding more cores will increase the detection rate [27], [28], [29]. Moreover, some studies focused on the relationship between the Gleason score and the 12-core biopsy. For instance, Arrabal-Polo et al. determined that there is no difference in Gleason score between the specimens from 6-core and 12-core biopsies [30]–[34]. Our study indicated that the TPUS-guided 12-core biopsy technique provided improved diagnostic yields, especially in cancers originating in the TZ of larger prostates, without increasing the risk of biopsy-related complications.

Anatomically the prostate is divided into three regions: the PZ, TZ and central zone (CZ), and is covered in a tough fibrous sheath [35]. The PZ is further divided into the apex, midgland and the base. Results describing the distribution of tumors within the zones of the prostate are inconsistent. Some studies suggest that 75% prostate cancers occur in the PZ, and 25% occur in the CZ and TZ [36]. A Study by Demura et al, [37] indicated that the distribution of prostate cancer is uniform within the entire gland. Other reports show that the carcinoma foci are more localized in the anterior location [38]. Our study revealed that there are no differences in tumor distribution between the apex, midgland and base in the PZ. However, although not statistically significant, the ratio of the diagnostic yield of 10-core biopsy relative to sextant biopsy was 1.74 (37.63% vs 21.60%), indicating that increasing the number of cores sampled in the PZ may improve diagnosis.

Age is a strong predictor of prostate cancer. Several reports [39], [40] suggest that mortality is positively correlated with age. In our study, the age of the majority of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer was over 60 years (>90%). In these older males, the diagnostic yield was similar with both the 10-core and 12-core biopsy schemes, suggesting that the number of cores is not an important predictor of the success of the diagnostic approach in this patient population.

Prostate volume is another predictor of prostate cancer. Yamamoto et al.[41] and Novara et al. [42] showed that there was a negative correlation between diagnostic yield and prostate volume. In our study, the diagnostic yield of 12-core biopsy was higher than that of 10-core biopsy, and when prostate volume was over 50 ml, adding cores in the TZ significantly increased the number of tumors detected.

PSA is a protease secreted by prostate epithelial cells. A number of events cause an increase in PSA levels, including benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and prostatitis [43]. Currently, it is recommended not to screen for prostate cancer based on PSA-levels due to the risks of over-diagnosis and over-treatment [44], [45]. However, the predictive value of PSA is an important non-invasive screening method. Screening for prostate cancer based on PSA significantly reduces the risk of metastatic cancer [46]. Our data indicate that biopsy should be performed in patients with PSA levels greater than 4 ng/ml, but extended approaches are not required.

Several reports [47], [48] show that the diagnostic yield from core samples in the TZ is so low that it could be omitted. Other studies recommend including biopsy cores from the TZ to improve the diagnostic yield [49], at least in repeat biopsies [50]. Our research found that the addition of 2 cores in the TZ resulted in the diagnosis of 13 extra TZ-only positive patients who were DRE negative. Further research based on a larger number of patients is required before it can be concluded that the TZ should be routinely included in prostate biopsy schemes.

Conclusion

In summary, prostate lesions occur uniformly in the PZ. Biopsy of the TZ should be reserved as initial biopsy in patients whose prostate volume is over 50 ml. The 12-core biopsy approach maximizes the sensitivity of cancer detection while keeping biopsy-related complications low. Thus, TPUS-guided 12-core biopsy is a safe and effective method to improve the diagnostic yield of tumors occurring in the TZ of larger prostates.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: RW. Performed the experiments: MHY. Analyzed the data: LHG LLZ. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SW PL. Wrote the paper: GX JX.

References

1. 1. Ng MK, Van As N, Thomas K, Woode-Amissah R, Horwich A, et al. (2009) Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics in untreated, localized prostate cancer: PSA velocity vs PSA doubling time. BJU Int 103: 872–876.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, et al. (2004) Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or  = 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 350: 2239–2246.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Talab SS, Preston MA, Elmi A, Tabatabaei S (2012) Prostate Cancer Imaging What the Urologist Wants to Know. Radiologic Clinics of North America 50: : 1015-+.
4. 4. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, et al. (2011) EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Clinically Localised Disease. Eur Urol 59: 61–71.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, Kondo N, Yokoyoma T, et al. (2008) Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 71: 191–195.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T, Fujii T, Jo Y, et al. (2008) A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 11: 134–138.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Shen PF, Zhu YC, Wei WR, Li YZ, Yang J, et al. (2012) The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 14: 310–315.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Chang DT, Challacombe B, Lawrentschuk N (2013) Transperineal biopsy of the prostate-is this the future? Nat Rev Urol.
9. 9. Van der Kwast T, Bubendorf L, Mazerolles C, Raspollini MR, Van Leenders GJ, et al.. (2013) Guidelines on processing and reporting of prostate biopsies: the 2013 update of the pathology committee of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Virchows Arch.
10. 10. Humphrey P, Andriole G (2010) Prostate cancer diagnosis. Missouri medicine 107: 107.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Scattoni V, Raber M, Abdollah F, Roscigno M, Deho F, et al. (2010) Biopsy schemes with the fewest cores for detecting 95% of the prostate cancers detected by a 24-core biopsy. Eur Urol 57: 1–8.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Scattoni V, Raber M, Capitanio U, Abdollah F, Roscigno M, et al. (2011) The optimal rebiopsy prostatic scheme depends on patient clinical characteristics: results of a recursive partitioning analysis based on a 24-core systematic scheme. Eur Urol 60: 834–841.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Ravizzini G, Turkbey B, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL (2009) New horizons in prostate cancer imaging. Eur J Radiol 70: 212–226.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Zullig LL, Jackson GL, Dorn RA, Provenzale DT, McNeil R, et al. (2012) Cancer incidence among patients of the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Mil Med 177: 693–701.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Deshields TL, Potter P, Olsen S, Liu J (2013) The persistence of symptom burden: symptom experience and quality of life of cancer patients across one year. Support Care Cancer.
16. 16. (2013) Prostate cancer: Survival nomogram for men with progressive mCRPC. Nat Rev Urol.
17. 17. Kopke T, Oberpenning F, Bettendorf O, Eltze E, Herrmann E, et al. (2010) Negative predictive value of systematic ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: which tumours do we miss? Anticancer Res 30: 1823–1827.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Nesrallah L, Nesrallah A, Antunes AA, Leite KR, Srougi M (2008) The role of extended prostate biopsy on prostate cancer detection rate: a study performed on the bench. Int Braz J Urol 34: 563–570 discussion 570–561.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Moussa AS, Meshref A, Schoenfield L, Masoud A, Abdel-Rahman S, et al. (2010) Importance of additional “extreme” anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer. Urology 75: 1034–1039.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Ficarra V, Novella G, Novara G, Galfano A, Pea M, et al. (2005) The potential impact of prostate volume in the planning of optimal number of cores in the systematic transperineal prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 48: 932–937.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Philip J, Manikandan R, Javle P, Foster CS (2009) Prostate cancer diagnosis: should patients with prostate specific antigen >10 ng/mL have stratified prostate biopsy protocols? Cancer Detect Prev 32: 314–318.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Gore JL, Shariat SF, Miles BJ, Kadmon D, Jiang N, et al. (2001) Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 165: 1554–1559.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Jeong H, Jeong BC, Kwak C, Lee E, Lee SE, et al. (2008) A comparison of prostate cancer detection rates by 12 or 6 core biopsy at different prostate-specific antigen densities in Korean men. World J Urol 26: 395–400.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Emiliozzi P, Longhi S, Scarpone P, Pansadoro A, DePaula F, et al. (2001) The value of a single biopsy with 12 transperineal cores for detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 166: 845–850.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE, Ornstein DK, Catalona WJ (2000) A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol 164: 388–392.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Abd TT, Goodman M, Hall J, Ritenour CW, Petros JA, et al. (2011) Comparison of 12-core versus 8-core prostate biopsy: multivariate analysis of large series of US veterans. Urology 77: 541–547.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Elabbady AA, Khedr MM (2006) Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol 49: 49–53 discussion 53.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Tobiume M, Yamada Y, Nakamura K, Honda N (2008) Retrospective study comparing six- and twelve-core prostate biopsy in detection of prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol 34: 9–14.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. O'Connell MJ, Smith CS, Fitzpatrick PE, Keane CO, Fitzpatrick JM, et al. (2004) Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate gland: value of 12 versus 6 cores. Abdom Imaging 29: 132–136.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Arrabal-Polo MA, Jimenez-Pacheco A, Mijan-Ortiz JL, Arrabal-Martin M, Valle-Diaz de la Guardia F, et al. (2010) Relationship between biopsy Gleason score and radical prostatectomy specimen Gleason score in patients undergoing sextant vs 12 core biopsies. Arch Esp Urol 63: 791–796.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Bigliocchi M, Marini M, Nofroni I, Perugia G, Shahabadi H, et al.. (2007) 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 59: : 395–402; 403–396.
32. 32. Luciani LG, De Giorgi G, Valotto C, Zanin M, Bierti S, et al. (2006) Role of transperineal six-core prostate biopsy in patients with prostate-specific antigen level greater than 10 ng/mL and abnormal digital rectal examination findings. Urology 67: 555–558.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Takenaka A, Hara R, Hyodo Y, Ishimura T, Sakai Y, et al. (2006) Transperineal extended biopsy improves the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate: a comparative study of 6 and 12 biopsy cores. Int J Urol 13: 10–14.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Emiliozzi P, Scarpone P, DePaula F, Pizzo M, Federico G, et al. (2004) 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 171: 197–199.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Fine SW, Reuter VE (2012) Anatomy of the prostate revisited: implications for prostate biopsy and zonal origins of prostate cancer. Histopathology 60: 142–152.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Liu XG, Shen C, Li J, Zhang K, Yu W, et al. (2012) [Distribution characteristics of cancerous foci in the prostate among patients undergoing single positive core biopsy]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 18: 155–159.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Demura T, Hioka T, Furuno T, Kaneta T, Gotoda H, et al. (2005) Differences in tumor core distribution between palpable and nonpalpable prostate tumors in patients diagnosed using extensive transperineal ultrasound-guided template prostate biopsy. Cancer 103: 1826–1832.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Yan W, Li H, Zhou Y, Huang Z, Rong S, et al. (2009) Prostate carcinoma spatial distribution patterns in Chinese men investigated with systematic transperineal ultrasound guided 11-region biopsy. Urol Oncol 27: 520–524.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Stamatiou KN (2011) Elderly and prostate cancer screening. Urology Journal 8: 83–87.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Hamstra DA, Bae K, Pilepich MV, Hanks GE, Grignon DJ, et al. (2011) Older age predicts decreased metastasis and prostate cancer-specific death for men treated with radiation therapy: meta-analysis of radiation therapy oncology group trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81: 1293–1301.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Yamamoto S, Kin U, Nakamura K, Hamano M, Nishikawa Y, et al. (2005) 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 10: 117–121.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Novara G, Boscolo-Berto R, Lamon C, Fracalanza S, Gardiman M, et al. (2010) Detection rate and factors predictive the presence of prostate cancer in patients undergoing ultrasonography-guided transperineal saturation biopsies of the prostate. BJU Int 105: 1242–1246.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Fujita K, Imamura R, Tanigawa G, Nakagawa M, Hayashi T, et al. (2012) Low serum neutrophil count predicts a positive prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 15: 386–390.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Schroder FH (2011) Stratifying risk—the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and prostate-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 365: 1953–1955.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Brett AS, Ablin RJ (2011) Prostate-cancer screening—what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force left out. N Engl J Med 365: 1949–1951.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Tammela T, Maattanen L, et al. (2012) Screening for prostate cancer decreases the risk of developing metastatic disease: findings from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol 62: 745–752.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Hwang SI, Lee HJ, Cho JY, Kim SH, Lee SE, et al. (2009) Should transition zone biopsies be added to 12-core systematic biopsies of the prostate? J Clin Ultrasound 37: 281–284.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Dogan B, Serefoglu EC, Atmaca AF, Canda AE, Akbulut Z, et al. (2012) Is sampling transitional zone in patients who had prior negative prostate biopsy necessary? Int Urol Nephrol 44: 1071–1075.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Yunkai Z, Yaqing C, Ren W, Yongchang Z (2010) Are transition zone biopsies necessary in transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy protocol? Results of a Chinese population-based study. Clin Imaging 34: 43–46.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. de la Rosette JJ, Wink MH, Mamoulakis C, Wondergem N, ten Kate FJ, et al. (2009) Optimizing prostate cancer detection: 8 versus 12-core biopsy protocol. J Urol 182: 1329–1336.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar