Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 20, pages 311–317 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background:

Despite high rates of disease misclassification and sepsis, the use of transrectal biopsy remains commonplace. Transperineal mapping biopsies mitigate these problems but carry increased cost and patient burden. Local anaesthetic, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted transperineal biopsy may offer an alternative. Here, we aim to determine the feasibility, tolerability and detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer using a local anaesthetic, transperineal, MRI-targeted biopsy technique.

Methods:

Tertiary referral centre in which 181 consecutive men underwent local anaesthetic, transperineal MRI-targeted prostate biopsy (September 2014 to January 2016). A standardized local anaesthetic technique was used to obtain targeted biopsies using visual estimation with the number of targeted cores determined by each of a number of users. We assessed adverse events, patient visual analogue pain scores and detection rates of clinically significant cancer (defined by University College London (UCL) definitions one and two and separately by the presence of dominant and non-dominant Gleason pattern 4). We secondarily assessed detection of any cancer, rates of detection by MRI (Likert) score and by presenting PSA. Differences were assessed using Chi-squared tests (P<0.05).

Results:

One hundred eighty-one men with 243 lesions were included. There were no episodes of sepsis or re-admissions and one procedure was abandoned owing to patient discomfort. Twenty-three out of 25 (92%) men would recommend the procedure to another. Median visual analogue pain score was 1.0 (interquartile range: 0.0–2.4). A total 104/181 (57%) had UCL definition 1 disease (Gleason ⩾4+3 and/or maximum cancer length ⩾6 mm) and 129/181 (71%) had UCL definition 2 cancer (Gleason ⩾3+4 and/or maximum cancer length ⩾4 mm). Fifty-four out of 181 (30%) and 124/181 (69%) had dominant and non-dominant pattern 4 disease or greater (irrespective of cancer length). Any cancer was detected in 142/181 (78%). Significant disease was more likely in higher MRI-scoring lesions and in men with PSAs ⩾10 ng ml−1.

Conclusions:

This approach to prostate biopsy is feasible, tolerable and can be performed in ambulatory settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Han M, Chang D, Kim C, Lee BJ, Zuo Y, Kim HJ et al. Geometric evaluation of systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2012; 188: 2404–2409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 1046–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anastasiadis E, van der Meulen J, Emberton M . Hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: a database analysis in England. Int J Urol 2015; 22: 181–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent - update 2013. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 124–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Valerio M, Donaldson, Emberton M, Ehdale B, Hadaschik BA, Marks LS et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Abd-Alazeez M, Charman SC 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Moon DA et al. Sepsis and 'superbugs': should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int 2014; 114: 384–388.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, Maroni PD, Werahera PN, Baer CA et al. Clinical-pathologic correlation between trans- perineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 2013; 73: 778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Donaldson IA, Alonzi T, Barratt D, Berge V, Bott S, Bottomley D et al. Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes—a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 771–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 1045–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric mri for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37: 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kirkham A, Haslam P, Keanie JY, McCafferty I, Padhani AR, Punwani S et al. Prostate MRI: who, when, and how? Report from a UK consensus meeting. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: 1016–1023.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS . Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: W612–W618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Freeman A et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011; 186: 458–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Robertson NL, Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Barratt D, Emberton M . Prostate cancer risk inflation as a consequence of image-targeted biopsy of the prostate: a computer simulation study. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 628–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Abd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed HU, Arya M, Anastasiadis E, Charman SC et al. Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2014; 17: 40–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Delongchamps NB, Lefevre A, Bouazza Z, Beuvon F, Legman P, Cornud F . Detection of significant prostate cancer with MR-targeted biopsies: should TRUS-MRI fusion guided biopsies alone be a standard of care? J Urol 2015; 193: 1198–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W . The diagnostic performance of multiparametric resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2015; 195: 1428–1435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, Goldman D, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA . Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989; 142: 71–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Haas GP, Delongchamps N, Brawley OW, Wang CY, de la Roza G . The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol 2008; 15: 3866–3871.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti J . Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 386–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Haber GP, Crouzet S et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced- magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2009; 74: 1094–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kirkham APS, Emberton M, Allen C . How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 2006; 50: 1163–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Moore CM, Robertson N, Arsonious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Grey A, Hartington T, KasiVisvanathan V, Arya M, Emberton M, Freeman A et al. Transperineal MRI visually-targeted prostate biopsies compared to template mapping biopsy in 534 men requiring further risk stratification. J Clin Urol 2016; 34 (suppl 9-77): (abstr P3-10).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P et al. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Eng J Med 2016; 375: 1415–1424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Novella G, Ficarra V, Galfano A, Ballario R, Novara G, Cavalleri S et al. Pain assessment after original transperineal prostate biopsy using a coaxial needle. Urology 2003; 62: 689–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kubo Y, Kawakami S, Numao N, Takazawa R, Fujii Y, Masuda H et al. Simple and effective local anesthesia for transperineal extended prostate biopsy: application to three-dimensional 26-core biopsy. Int J Urol 2009; 16: 420–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Iremashvili VV, Chepurov AK, Kobaladze KM, Gamidov SI . Periprostatic local anesthesia with pudendal block for transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a randomized trial. Urology 2010; 75: 1023–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Smith JB, Popert R, Nuttall MC, Vyas L, Kinsella J, Cahill D . Transperineal sector prostate biopsies: a local anesthetic outpatient technique. Urology 2014; 83: 1344–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targed prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wegelin O, van Melick HH, Hooft L, Bosch JL, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 2016; 71: 517–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK

    E J Bass, I A Donaldson, C Moore, M Arya, M Emberton & H U Ahmed

  2. Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    E J Bass, I A Donaldson, C Moore, M Arya, M Emberton & H U Ahmed

  3. Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    A Freeman & C Jameson

  4. The Prostate Unit, BUPA Cromwell Hospital, London, UK

    A Freeman, C Jameson & H U Ahmed

  5. Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK

    S Punwani

  6. Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    S Punwani

Authors
  1. E J Bass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I A Donaldson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C Jameson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S Punwani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M Arya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M Emberton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. H U Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E J Bass.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bass, E., Donaldson, I., Freeman, A. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20, 311–317 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.13

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.13

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links