The Role of Saturation Transperineal Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Targeted Fusion Biopsies

Introduction. One of the biggest problems in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), which distinguishes it from many other solid tumour conditions, is the difficulty of detecting the tumour using standard imaging techniques. The primary method of diagnosis of PCa, which allows timely treatment, is prostate biopsy. However, under certain clinical situations a saturation biopsy allows a more accurate prediction of the volume and degree of malignancy of the tumour, which can be used to plan the tactics of treatment.

Materials and methods. 81 patients were examined, whose mean age was 63.5 ± 7.4. The average volume of the prostate was 59 ± 24.2 cm3 , while the average level of the prostate-specific antigen was 12.5 ± 8.9 ng/ml. All patients underwent at least one transrectal prostate biopsy. The average duration of the transperineal saturation biopsy of the prostate was 25.2 ± 7.4 minutes. The average number of biopsies was 25.

Results and discussion. Based on the results of transperineal saturation biopsy, prostate cancer was detected in 34 patients (43.2 %). Adenocarcinoma was detected in all patients with confirmed malignant pathology. Gleason grading was 6 points in 22 (27.1 %) patients, 7 in 9 (9.9 %) and 8 in 4 (4.9 %). Aggressive tumour types (Gleason 7 and 8) corresponded to PIRADS 4 and 5. In PIRADS 2 and 3, 80 % and 50 %, respectively, manifested prostatic adenoma without malignant manifestation. Following radical prostatectomy, the results of a planned morphological conclusion were studied alongside biopsy data. It was determined that in 80.0 % (n = 12) of cases the tumour did not go beyond the prostate capsule and in only 20.0 % (n = 3) of cases was not confined to the prostate. The coincidence of diagnosis based on biopsy results and morphological conclusion was 86.7 %.

Conclusion. The study showed that saturation transperineal biopsy is often a reference diagnostic method when, despite the presence of clinical suspicion of PCa, a standard biopsy, including targeted fusion biopsies, fails to provide sufficient information to confirm or exclude PCa. In such situations, the proposed technique provides an alternative approach, with a good frequency of detection of prostate cancer.

1. Caprin A.D., Starinskiy V.V., Petrova G.V. (eds) Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2017 (morbidity and mortality). Moscow: MNIOI them. P.A. Herzen is a branch of the Federal Medical and Biological Center NIIRTs of the Russian Ministry of Health, 2018. (in Russ.)

2. Zyryanov A.V., Fedorov N.M., Zotov P.B., Naletov A.A., Burkhanova L.A., Smirnov V.O., et al. Morbidity and mortality from malignant neoplasms of the population of the Tyumen region in 2017. Tyumen Medical Journal. 2017;19(2):55–9. (in Russ.)

3. Siegel R., Naishadham D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(1):10–29. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20138

4. Bjurlin M.A., Wysock J.S., Taneja S.S. Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(2):299–313. DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.011. PMID: 24725491.

5. Keln A.A., Lykov A.V., Salnikov M.A. PSA-screening in the Tyumen region. Tyumen Medical Journal. 2014;16(4):25–6. (in Russ.)

6. Cash H., Maxeiner A., Stephan C., Fischer T., Durmus T., Holzmann J., et al. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/ transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol. 2016;34(4):525–32. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1671-8. PMID: 26293117.

7. Keln A.A., Zyryanov A.V., Surikov A.S., Ponomarev A.V., Kupchin A.V. The first experience of mri-trus fusion biopsy of the prostate. Medical bulletin of Bashkortostan. 2017;12(3):91–4. (in Russ.)

8. Maccagnano C., Gallina A., Roscigno M., Raber M., Capitanio U., Saccà A., et al. Prostate saturation biopsy following a first negative biopsy: state of the art. Urol Int. 2012;89:126–35. DOI: 10.1159/000339521

9. Kammerer-Jacquet S.F., Compérat E., Egevad L., Hes O., Oxley J., Varma M., et al. Handling and reporting of transperineal template prostate biopsy in Europe: a web-based survey by the European Network of Uropathology (ENUP). Virchows Arch. 2018;472(4):599–604. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-017-2265-1

10. Srirangam V., Rai B.P., Abroaf A., Agarwal S., Tadtayev S., Foley C., et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: should we be concerned? An observational cohort study with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Curr Urol. 2017;10(4):199–205. DOI: 10.1159/000447181

11. Cui K., Li X., Du Y., Tang X., Arai S., Geng Y., et al. Chemoprevention of prostate cancer in men with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN): a systematic review and adjusted indirect treatment comparison. Oncotarget. 2017;8(22):36674–84. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.16230

12. Shah R.B., Leandro G., Romerocaces G., Bentley J., Yoon J., Mendrinos S., et al. Improvement of diagnostic agreement among pathologists in resolving an “atypical glands suspicious for cancer” diagnosis in prostate biopsies using a novel “Disease-Focused Diagnostic Review” quality improvement process. Hum Pathol. 2016;56:155–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2016.06.009

13. Jansen I., Lucas M., Savci-Heijink C.D., Meijer S.L., Marquering H.A., de Bruin D.M., et al. Histopathology: ditch the slides, because digital and 3D are on show. World J Urol. 2018;36(4):549–55. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2202-1

14. Keln A.A., Zyryanov A.V., Surikov A.S., Ponomarev A.V., Kupchin A.V., Znobischev V.G., et al. Fusion prostate biopsy in patients with previous negative standard prostate biopsy. Herald of urology. 2017;5(4):39–46. DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2017-5-4-39-46 (in Russ.)

15. Mortezavi A., Märzendorfer O., Donati O.F., Rizzi G., Rupp N.J., Wettstein M.S., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided targeted biopsy evaluated by transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy for the detection and characterization of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2018;200(2):309–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.067

16. Hansen N.L., Barrett T., Kesch C., Pepdjonovic L., Bonekamp D., O’Sullivan R., et al. Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122(1):40–9. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14049

17. Bul M., Zhu X., Valdagni R., Pickles T., Kakehi Y., Rannikko A., et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):597–603. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005

18. Emberton M. Why focal therapy is a legitimate and necessary response to a changing world. J Urol. 2015;194(4):875–6. DOI: 10.1016/j. juro.2015.07.049

19. Baba K., Sekine Y., Miyazawa Y., Syuto T., Nomura M., Koike H., et al. Assessment of antimicrobiral prophylaxis in transperineal prostate biopsy: a single-center retrospective study of 485 cases. J Infect Chemother. 2018;24(8):637–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2018.03.014