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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Rationale and protocol for randomized study of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy efficacy and complications (ProBE-PC study)

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 24, pages 688–696 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

Rrisk of infection and hospitalization after transrectal prostate biopsy (TRBx) has been increasing worldwide. Several modified antibiotic regimens have met with variable success in preventing such infections. Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) is increasingly recommended as the preferred alternative due to a potentially lower risk of post-biopsy infections. Aim of this review is to define the magnitude of post-biopsy complications and the effectiveness of preventive strategies, including TPBx approach.

Methods

We performed a focused review of literature on infectious complications after TRBx and detailed the use of various preventive measures. We summarized the effectiveness of several preventive measures, including TPBx, and outlined the inconsistencies in reported outcomes. We identified potential barriers to the uptake of TPBx, including the gap in knowledge such as lack of high-quality evidence.

Results

Several antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, including targeted and augmented, have been utilized for TRBx without demonstrating a clearly superior regimen. Of the non-antibiotic preventive measure, povidone-iodine rectal prep appears to be most effective strategy. Several single-arm cohort studies have reported very low rates of infections after TPBx and demonstrated the feasibility of an office-based procedure. However, barriers to the adoption of TPBx exist including retrospective data, and conflicting results showing minimal reduction in complications with increased burden of resource utilization. Presently, there are no randomized studies comparing the infectious complications after TRBx and TPBx. We discuss the rationale and protocol for a randomized controlled trial to determine the comparative effectiveness of biopsy techniques.

Conclusions

TPBx approach has the potential to lower the rate of post-biopsy infections and hospitalizations. However, there are several barriers to widespread adoption of this approach including inconsistencies in reported outcomes and lack of Level-1 evidence. Randomized controlled studies are required to directly compare the infectious complications associated with each biopsy procedure.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hong YM, Lai FC, Chon CH, McNeal JE, Presti JC Jr. Impact of prior biopsy scheme on pathologic features of cancers detected on repeat biopsies. Urol Oncol. 2004;22:7–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, Cookson MS, Gomella LG, Troyer D, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol. 2013;189:2039–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72:250–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Evans R, Loeb A, Kaye KS, Cher ML, Martin ET. Infection-related hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in United States men. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4:ofw265.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infographic: antibiotic resistance the global threat. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/globalheal.

  7. Redgrave LS, Sutton SB, Webber MA, Piddock LJ. Fluoroquinolone resistance: mechanisms, impact on bacteria, and role in evolutionary success. Trends Microbiol. 2014;22:438–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chung HS, Hwang EC, Yu HS, Jung SI, Lee SJ, Lim DH, et al. Prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant rectal flora in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy: a prospective multicenter study. Int J Urol. 2018;25:278–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roberts MJ, Macdonald A, Ranasinghe S, Bennett H, Teloken PE, Harris P, et al. Transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy under intravenous anaesthesia: a clinical, microbiological and cost analysis of 2048 cases over 11 years at a tertiary institution. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-0263-x. [Epub ahead of print.]

  10. Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017;71:353–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, Holmes M, Grummet J, Naber K, et al. Prostate biopsy-related infection: a systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches. Urology. 2017;104:11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Skouteris VM, Crawford ED, Mouraviev V, Arangua P, Metsinis MP, Skouteris M, et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided versus transperineal mapping prostate biopsy: complication comparison. Rev Urol. 2018;20:19–25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wu YP, Li XD, Ke ZB, Chen SH, Chen PZ, Wei Y, et al. Risk factors for infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:1491–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, Meng MV, Raman JD, Spears V, et al. An update of the American Urological Association white paper on the prevention and treatment of the more common complications related to prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2017;198:329–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liss MA, Taylor SA, Batura D, Steensels D, Chayakulkeeree M, Soenens C, et al. Fluoroquinolone resistant rectal colonization predicts risk of infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2014;192:1673–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, Liu Y, Law C, Klotz LH, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013;189:S12–S8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gross MD, Alshak MN, Shoag JE, Laviana AA, Gorin MA, Sedrakyan A, et al. Healthcare costs of post-prostate biopsy sepsis. Urology. 2019;133:11–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brown RW, Warner JJ, Turner BI, Harris LF, Alford RH. Bacteremia and bacteriuria after transrectal prostatic biopsy. Urology. 1981;18:145–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pradere B, Veeratterapillay R, Dimitropoulos K, Yuan Y, Omar MI, MacLennan S, et al. Non-antibiotic strategies for the prevention of infectious complications following prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001399.

  21. Pilatz A, Veeratterapillay R, Köves B, Cai T, Bartoletti R, Wagenlehner F, et al. Update on strategies to reduce infectious complications after prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:20–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sabbagh R, McCormack M, Péloquin F, Faucher R, Perreault JP, Perrotte P, et al. A prospective randomized trial of 1-day versus 3-day antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Can J Urol. 2004;11:2216–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Taylor AK, Zembower TR, Nadler RB, Scheetz MH, Cashy JP, Bowen D, et al. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications and cost of care. J Urol. 2012;187:1275–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cussans A, Somani BK, Basarab A, Dudderidge TJ. The role of targeted prophylactic antimicrobial therapy before transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy in reducing infection rates: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2016;117:725–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cheung C, Patel HD, Landis P, Carter HB, Han M. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy during active surveillance: effect on hospitalization. Urol Oncol. 2018;36:158.e7–e12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liss MA, Kim W, Moskowitz D, Szabo RJ. Comparative effectiveness of targeted vs empirical antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent sepsis from transrectal prostate biopsy: a retrospective analysis. J Urol. 2015;194:397–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jiang P, Liss MA, Szabo RJ. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis does not always prevent sepsis after transrectal prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2018;200:361–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hadjipavlou M, Eragat M, Kenny C, Pantelidou M, Mulhem W, Wood C, et al. Effect of augmented antimicrobial prophylaxis and rectal swab culture-guided targeted prophylaxis on the risk of sepsis following transrectal prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6:95–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. CDC. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. CDC; 2013. https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf.

  30. Hu X-Y, Logue M, Robinson N. Antimicrobial resistance is a global problem—a UK perspective. Eur J Integr Med. 2020;36:101136.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Ventola CL. The antibiotic resistance crisis: part 1: causes and threats. P T 2015;40:277–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F. Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1309–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Curtis R, et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13:71–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rabets JC, Jones JS, Patel A, Zippe CD. Prostate cancer detection with office based saturation biopsy in a repeat biopsy population. J Urol. 2004;172:94–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tu X, Liu Z, Chang T, Qiu S, Xu H, Bao Y, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may perform better than transrectal route in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17:e860–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Winoker JS, Wajswol E, Falagario U, Maritini A, Moshier E, Voutsinas N, et al. Transperineal versus transrectal targeted biopsy with use of electromagnetically-tracked MR/US fusion guidance platform for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urology. 2020;146:278–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17:31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Loy LM, Lim GH, Leow JJ, Lee CH, Tan TW, Tan CH. A systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound guided fusion biopsy of prostate for cancer detection—comparing transrectal with transperineal approaches. Urologic Oncol: Semin Original Investig. 2020;38:650–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM. Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol. 2001;166:86–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pepdjonovic L, Tan GH, Huang S, Mann S, Frydenberg M, Moon D, et al. Zero hospital admissions for infection after 577 transperineal prostate biopsies using single-dose cephazolin prophylaxis. World J Urol. 2017;35:1199–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Vyas L, Acher P, Kinsella J, Challacombe B, Chang RT, Sturch P, et al. Indications, results and safety profile of transperineal sector biopsies (TPSB) of the prostate: a single centre experience of 634 cases. BJU Int. 2014;114:32–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Johansen TEB, Zahl PH, Baco E, Bartoletti R, Bonkat G, Bruyere F, et al. Antibiotic resistance, hospitalizations, and mortality related to prostate biopsy: first report from the Norwegian Patient Registry. World J Urol. 2020;38:17–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Grummet J, Gorin MA, Popert R, O’Brien T, Lamb AD, Hadaschik B, et al. “TREXIT 2020”: why the time to abandon transrectal prostate biopsy starts now. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:62–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Feliciano J, Teper E, Ferrandino M, Macchia RJ, Blank W, Grunberger I, et al. The incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections after prostate biopsy-are fluoroquinolones still effective prophylaxis? J Urol. 2008;179:952–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chang DT, Challacombe B, Lawrentschuk N. Transperineal biopsy of the prostate-is this the future? Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10:690–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Young R, Norris B, Reeves F, Peters JS. A retrospective comparison of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsies: experience of a single surgeon. J Endourol. 2019;33:498–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SA, Gardiner RA. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144:1784–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Xue J, Qin Z, Cai H, Zhang C, Li X, Xu W, et al. Comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy for detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:23322–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Miah S, Eldred-Evans D, Simmons LAM, Shah TT, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, et al. Patient reported outcome measures for transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies in the PICTURE Study. J Urol. 2018;200:1235–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 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;389:815–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Berry B, Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Cowling TE, Aggarwal A, et al. Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study. BJU Int. 2020;126:97–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tamhankar AS, El-Taji O, Vasdev N, Foley C, Popert R, Adshead J. The clinical and financial implications of a decade of prostate biopsies in the NHS: analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics data 2008–2019. BJU Int. 2020;126:133–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Altok M, Kim B, Patel BB, Shih YT, Ward JF, McRae SE, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of five prostate biopsy modalities: a platform for integrating cost into novel-platform comparative research. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:524–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Holm HH, Gammelgaard J. Ultrasonically guided precise needle placement in the prostate and the seminal vesicles. J Urol. 1981;125:385–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:71–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bass EJ, Donaldson IA, Freeman A, Jameson C, Punwani S, Moore C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20:311–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, Spevack L, Hajek D, Tunis A, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: experience with 1,287 patients. Prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol. 2019;201:1121–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Thurtle D, Starling L, Leonard K, Stone T, Gnanapragasam VJ. Improving the safety and tolerability of local anaesthetic outpatient transperineal prostate biopsies: a pilot study of the CAMbridge PROstate Biopsy (CAMPROBE) method. J Clin Urol. 2018;11:192–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Wetterauer C, Shahin O, Federer-Gsponer JR, Keller N, Wyler S, Seifert HH, et al. Feasibility of freehand MRI/US cognitive fusion transperineal biopsy of the prostate in local anaesthesia as in-office procedure-experience with 400 patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:429–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Gorin MA, Meyer AR, Zimmerman M, Harb R, Joice GA, Schwen ZR, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsy with cognitive magnetic resonance imaging/biplanar ultrasound fusion: description of technique and early results. World J Urol. 2020;38:1943–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kum F, Elhage O, Maliyil J, Wong K, Faure Walker N, Kulkarni M, et al. Initial outcomes of local anaesthetic freehand transperineal prostate biopsies in the outpatient setting. BJU Int. 2020;125:244–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Marra G, Zhuang J, Beltrami M, Calleris G, Zhao X, Marquis A, et al. Transperineal freehand multiparametric MRI fusion targeted biopsies under local anaesthesia for prostate cancer diagnosis: a multicentre prospective study of 1014 cases. BJU Int. 2021;127:122–30.

  63. National Institute of Health. https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9973695.

  64. Mian B. Prostate biopsy: efficacy and complications (ProBE-PC). 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04081636.

  65. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. CONSORT 2010 Statement. Updated guidelines for reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:726–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our appreciation to the research staff, Ms Brenda Romeo and Ms Laura Davey, for their support with the conduct of the study, and Dr. Sana Siddiqui for assistance with the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA

    Badar M. Mian, Ronald P. Kaufman Jr & Hugh A. G. Fisher

Authors
  1. Badar M. Mian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald P. Kaufman Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hugh A. G. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Badar M. Mian.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mian, B.M., Kaufman, R.P. & Fisher, H.A.G. Rationale and protocol for randomized study of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy efficacy and complications (ProBE-PC study). Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 24, 688–696 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00352-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00352-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links