A retrospective comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer

• Main Authors: Carmelo Agostino Di Franco, Hussein Jallous, Daniele Porru, Giovanni Luca Giliberto, Tiziano Cebrelli, Carmine Tinelli, Bruno Rovereto
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: PAGEPress Publications 2017-03-01
• Series: Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia
• Subjects: Urology; Oncology; Prostate; Biopsy; PSA; Prostatic cancer; Transperineal prostate biopsy; Transrectal prostate biopsy; Rectal exploration
• Online Access: http://www.pagepressjournals.org/index.php/aiua/article/view/6608

Background: The aim of this study was to analyze the differences between TRUSguided transrectal prostate biopsy (TR) and transperineal prostate biopsy (TP) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The two biopsy methods were evaluated in terms of diagnostic sensitivity and of early and late complications. Methods: This retrospective study was realized through the review of clinical records of 219 men that received a prostate biopsy between 2004 and 2014. The biopsy was performed because of elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), abnormal digital rectal examination findings (DRE), abnormal transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) findings and symptoms due to prostate diseases. The cohort study was subdivided in two groups: 108 patients received a transrectal biopsy between 2004 and 2006 and 111 received a transperineal biopsy between 2007 and 2014. In both groups, first biopsy was performed with 12 cores scheme whereas second or third biopsy were performed with 18 cores scheme; in this study we excluded patients who underwent to biopsies with different number cores to reduce the bias. Both groups were evaluated on the basis of age, total PSA, PSA ratio (F/T), DRE/TRUS findings, presence/absence of low urinary tracts symptoms (LUTS), presence/absence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), histologic findings of biopsy cores and immediate/postoperative complications. Then, it was evaluated the overall cancer detection rate and the stratified cancer rate on the basis of the previous reported parameters. Finally, we analyzed the early and late complication rate in both groups. U Mann-Whitney test was used to evaluate the quantitative variables and χ²-test or Fisher exact test for qualitative variables. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: 66 cancers were detected in 219 patients of the study; 29 cancers were detected in the TP group and 37 in the TR group. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall cancer rate detected in both groups (26.13% e 34.26% respectively; p = 0.190). However, TP biopsy detected more cancers at first biopsy than TR biopsy (89.7% vs 78.4% respectively; p = 0.021). Moreover, TP biopsy detected more cancers in those patients with low cancer suspect (PSA < 4 ng/ml, F/T > 15%, negative TRUS), instead TR biopsy had more sensitivity in detecting cancer in those patients with high cancer suspect (PSA > 10 ng/ml, F/T < 15%, TRUS with abnormal lesions). The presence of BPH did not influence sensitivity in both cases. There were no significant differences in the early complication rate whereas a statistically significant difference was observed in the late complication rate (4% vs 11% in TP and TR biopsy, respectively; p = 0.019). Conclusions: No statistically significant differences in sensitivity were observed between TP and TR biopsy, but TP biopsy detected more cancers at first time biopsy. Complications rate was lower in the TP group. Therefore, we conclude that the Urologist has the final choice in deciding the most appropriate biopsy technique, considering sensitivity and complications.