4.5 Article

Prostate biopsy: results and advantages of the transperineal approach-twenty-year experience of a single center

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 373-377

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-013-1108-1

Keywords

Prostate cancer; Transperineal prostate biopsy; Saturation prostate biopsy; Prostate biopsy complications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Detection rate for prostate cancer (PCa) and complications following transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) were reported. From January 1991 to December 2012, 4,000 men underwent TPBx; from 1991 to 2001, the patients underwent biopsy for suspicious DRE or PSA values > 4 ng/mL; moreover, from 2002, the indications were abnormal DRE, PSA > 10 ng/mL, PSA values between 4.1 and 10, 2.6 and 4 and < 2.5 ng/mL with F/T PSA < 25, < 20 < 15 %, respectively. In case of initial biopsy, the number of needles cores increased from 6 (1991-1996) to 12 (1997-2012) and 18 cores (2002-2012); in case of repeat biopsy, since 2005 a saturation biopsy (SPBx) with > 24 cores was performed. Overall, PCa, normal parenchyma, HGPIN and ASAP were found in 1,379 (34.5 %), 2,400 (60 %), 175 (4.4 %) and 46 (1.1 %) patients, respectively; in case of initial TPBx, the scheme at 18 showed a greater PCa detection in comparison with scheme at 6-12 cores (p < 0.05). In case of repeat biopsy, a higher detection of microfocus of cancer was found performing a SPBx; moreover, 15 % of cancers were localized in the anterior zone. Incidence of hemospermia and urinary retention were correlated with the number of needle cores resulting equal to 30.4 versus 11.1 % in case of SPBx (p < 0.05); moreover, none developed sepsis. Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) resets the risk of sepsis; moreover, in case of repeat SPBx, the transperineal approach detects a high number of significant PCa localized in the anterior zone (15 % of the cases).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available