Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2024 Oct;28(60):1–213. doi: 10.3310/ZKTW8214

Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Inês Souto-Ribeiro, Lois Woods, Emma Maund, David Alexander Scott, Joanne Lord, Joanna Picot, Jonathan Shepherd
PMCID: PMC11472213  PMID: 39364806

Abstract

BACKGROUND

People with suspected prostate cancer are usually offered either a local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy or a general anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy. Transperineal prostate biopsy is often carried out under general anaesthetic due to pain caused by the procedure. However, recent studies suggest that performing local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy may better identify cancer in particular regions of the prostate and reduce infection rates, while being carried out in an outpatient setting. Devices to assist with freehand methods of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate may also help practitioners performing prostate biopsies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate and general anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy for people with suspected prostate cancer, and local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with specific freehand devices in comparison with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate and transperineal prostate biopsy conducted with a grid and stepping device conducted under local or general anaesthetic.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies comparing the diagnostic yield and clinical effectiveness of different methods for performing prostate biopsies. We used pairwise and network meta-analyses to pool evidence on cancer detection rates and structured narrative synthesis for other outcomes. For the economic evaluation, we reviewed published and submitted evidence and developed a model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the different biopsy methods.

RESULTS

We included 19 comparative studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational comparative studies) and 4 single-arm studies of freehand devices. There were no statistically significant differences in cancer detection rates for local anaesthetic transperineal prostate (any method) compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.18) (n = 5 randomised controlled trials), as was the case for local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with a freehand device compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (relative risk 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 2.04) (n = 1 randomised controlled trial). Results of meta-analyses of observational studies were similar. The economic analysis indicated that local anaesthetic transperineal prostate is likely to be cost-effective compared with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (incremental cost below £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) and less costly and no less effective than general anaesthetic transperineal prostate. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with a freehand device is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy: incremental cost versus local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate of £743 per quality-adjusted life-year for people with magnetic resonance imaging Likert score of 3 or more at first biopsy.

LIMITATIONS

There is limited evidence for efficacy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. There is comparative evidence for the PrecisionPoint™ Transperineal Access System (BXTAccelyon Ltd, Burnham, UK) but limited or no evidence for the other freehand devices. Evidence for other outcomes is sparse. The cost-effectiveness results are sensitive to uncertainty over cancer detection rates, complication rates and the numbers of core samples taken with the different biopsy methods and the costs of processing them.

CONCLUSIONS

Transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthetic is equally efficient at detecting prostate cancer as transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy under local anaesthetic but it may be better with a freehand device. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate is associated with urinary retention type complications, whereas local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate has a higher infection rate. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy with a freehand device appears to meet conventional levels of costeffectiveness compared with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266443.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134220) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 28, No. 60. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Plain language summary

A prostate biopsy can help determine if a person has prostate cancer. The main ways of performing a prostate biopsy involve taking small samples of the prostate out through the rectum (back passage) or through the perineum – the skin area between the anus and the scrotum (testicles). Both methods use ultrasound images from a probe inserted into the rectum to help the clinician see what they are doing. Taking samples through the rectum is usually carried out under local anaesthetic, whereas taking samples through the perineum is usually carried out under general anaesthetic. We wanted to find out if taking samples through the perineum under local anaesthetic (instead of general anaesthetic) would be equally effective at detecting prostate cancer as the other biopsy methods and whether there was any improvement or change in the sorts of side effects people may have. We also wanted to know if people found the biopsy painful or not. We carried out searches of computer research databases to find relevant clinical and cost-effectiveness studies and compared the effectiveness of the different biopsy methods they used. We read and summarised the results of the studies we found in our search. Our findings showed that taking biopsy samples through the perineum under local anaesthetic had rates of detecting prostate cancer similar to those of the other biopsy methods. But if the clinician also used a freehand device that helps guide the biopsy needle as part of the procedure, then this may be a better method for detecting cancer. The studies we found agreed that performing this prostate biopsy under local anaesthetic was not too painful for most people. Our economic estimates suggest that using a freehand device for local anaesthetic perineal (through the skin of the perineum) biopsy may be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Cancer Research UK. Prostate Cancer Statistics: Prostate Cancer Incidence. 2017. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer#heading-Zero (accessed 17 May 2021).
  2. Cancer Research UK. Lifetime Risk of Prostate Cancer. 2018. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Zero (accessed 17 May 2021).
  3. Cancer Research UK. Prostate Cancer Incidence Statistics. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/incidence#heading-One (accessed 17 May 2021).
  4. Cancer Research UK. Prostate Cancer Risk. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/prostate-cancer/risk-factors (accessed 17 May 2021).
  5. Public Health England. Cancer Registration Statistics, England: Final Release, 2018: Public Health England; 2020 [updated 29 May 2020]. URL: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cancer-registration-statistics-england-2018-final-release/cancer-registration-statistics-england-final-release-2018 (accessed 17 May 2021).
  6. Public Health England. Cancer Registration Statistics: Cancer Mortality in England, 2018: Public Health England; 2020 [updated 27 November 2020]. URL: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cancer-registration-statistics-cancer-mortality-in-england-2018/cancer-registration-statistics-cancer-mortality-in-england-2018 (accessed 17 May 2021).
  7. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Suspected Cancer: Recognition and Referral. NG12 (Last updated 29 January 2021). 2015. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng12 (accessed 22 August 2024).
  8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Management. NG131. 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131 (accessed 22 August 2024).
  9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Management [D] Evidence Review for Diagnosing and Identifying Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131/evidence/d-diagnosing-and-identifying-clinically-significant-prostate-cancer-pdf-6779081777 (accessed 22 August 2024). [PubMed]
  10. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al., European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):746–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69(1):16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 2019;76(3):340–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. NHS England. Implementing a timed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. In A Handbook for Local Health and Care Systems. 2018.
  14. Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SA, Gardiner RA. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect 2016;144(8):1784–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0950268815002885 doi: 10.1017/S0950268815002885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Section of Oncology. COVID-19 Strategy for the Interim Management of Prostate Cancer. 2020.
  16. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Managment. NICE Guideline (NG131). Algorithm 1: Diagnosis and Staging. 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131/resources (accessed 2 September 2022). [PubMed]
  17. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al., PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389(10071):815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32401-1 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;370(10):932–42. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1311593 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al., QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):529–36. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al., Cochrane Bias Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017.
  22. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley; 2019.
  23. Owen RK, Bradbury N, Xin Y, Cooper N, Sutton A. MetaInsight: an interactive web-based tool for analyzing, interrogating, and visualizing network meta-analyses using R-shiny and netmeta. Res Synth Methods 2019;10(4):569–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1373 doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Cerruto MA, Vianello F, D’Elia C, Artibani W, Novella G, et al. Transrectal versus transperineal 14-core prostate biopsy in detection of prostate cancer: a comparative evaluation at the same institution. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2014;86(4):284–7. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2014.4.284 doi: 10.4081/aiua.2014.4.284. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Guo L-H, Wu R, Xu H-X, Xu J-M, Wu J, Wang S, et al. Comparison between ultrasound guided transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial. Sci Rep 2015;5(1):16089. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16089 doi: 10.1038/srep16089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, Kondo N, Yokoyoma T, Miyaji Y, Nagai A. Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 2008;71(2):191–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.09.029 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.09.029. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Lam W, Wong AHG, Chun S, Wong T, Hung WPL, Lie H, et al. P0999 Prostate cancer detection, tolerability and safety of transperineal prostate biopsy under local-anaesthesia versus standard transrectal biopsy in biopsy-naïve men: a pragmatic, parallel group, randomized-controlled study. Eur Urol 2021;79:S1405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(21)01372-5
  28. Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T, Fujii T, Jo Y, Nagai A, Fujisawa M. A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008;11(2):134–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500985 doi: 10.1038/sj.pcan.4500985. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Bojin Z. TPLA Biopsies ULHT [PowerPoint slide set; AIC]: provided by company. 2019.
  30. Chen KW, Pek G, Yufei Q, Toh PC, Kuek N, Lee JKC, et al. Comparing outcomes of transperineal to transrectal prostate biopsies performed under local anaesthesia. BJUI Compass 2021;1:8. https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.112 doi: 10.1002/bco2.112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Chen K, Chau TW, Qiao Y, Chun CM, Tan L, Chiong E, Lee J. Is transperineal prostate biopsy the emerging standard? a prospective comparison on outcomes of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsies. J Urol 2020;203(Suppl. 4):e307. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000853.01
  32. Emiliozzi P, Corsetti A, Tassi B, Federico G, Martini M, Pansadoro V. Best approach for prostate cancer detection: a prospective study on transperineal versus transrectal six-core prostate biopsy. Urology 2003;61(5):961–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02551-7 doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02551-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Hung WPL, Chun S, Wong T, Tsang C, Ho B, Ng A, et al. Transrectal vs. transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia: prospective comparative analysis of cancer detection, safety and tolerability using patient-reported outcome measures at a single centre. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19(Suppl. 2):e2315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-1683(20)34175-6
  34. Kum FE, Elhage O, Maliyil J, et al. Outcomes of local anaesthetic freehand transperineal biopsies in the outpatient setting: how does this compare to conventional biopsy methods? J Endourol 2018;32(Suppl. 2):A212.
  35. 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(2):244–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14620 doi: 10.1111/bju.14620. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Starmer B, Iordan N, McCabe J. Comparing tolerability of local anaesthetic transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsies. J Clin Urol 2021;16:147–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/20514158211024075
  37. Starmer B, Iordan NJM, et al. Comparison of tolerability of LA transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsies. 40th Congress of the Société Internationale d’Urologie SIU Around the World Virtual 2020. Virtual. 2020.
  38. Watanabe M, Hayashi T, Tsushima T, Irie S, Kaneshige T, Kumon H. Extensive biopsy using a combined transperineal and transrectal approach to improve prostate cancer detection. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc 2005;12(11):959–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2005.01186.x doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2005.01186.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A, Scattoni V, Raber M, Roscigno M, et al. Trans-rectal versus trans-perineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection rate? Urology 2011;77(4):921–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.08.048 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.08.048. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Jiang CY, Shen PF, Wang C, Gui H-J, Ruan Y, Zeng H, et al. Comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a propensity score-matched study. Asian J Androl 2019;21(6):612–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_16_19 doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_16_19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Szabo RJ. Free-hand transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia in the office without antibiotic prophylaxis: experience with 304 cases. J Endourol 2021;35(4):518–24. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.1086 doi: 10.1089/end.2020.1086. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Lv Z, Jiang H, Hu X, Yang C, Chand H, Tang C, Li Y. Efficacy and safety of periprostatic nerve block combined with perineal subcutaneous anaesthesia and intrarectal lidocaine gel in transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal prostate biopsy: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020;23(1):74–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0155-0 doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0155-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  43. Takuma K, Mikio S, Masashi I, et al. Transperineal ultrasound-guided multiple core biopsy using template for patients with one or more previous negative biopsies: comparison with systematic 10-core biopsy. Urology 2012;80(3):S306–S07. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(12)00882-5
  44. Walters U, Connor MJ, Bass EJ, Eldred-Evans D, Maynard W, Sarkar P, et al. P0888: switching from sedation to local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsies: a cost-benefit analysis. Eur Urol 2021;79:S1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(21)01262-8
  45. Rij SV, Chapman D. Transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthetic is ready for prime time – a comparison between general anaesthetic procedure for accuracy, tolerability and complications. BJU Int 2020;125(Suppl. 1):87–8.
  46. Gnanapragasam VJ, Leonard K, Sut M, Ilie C, Ord J, Roux J, et al. Multicentre clinical evaluation of the safety and performance of a simple transperineal access system for prostate biopsies for suspected prostate cancer: the CAMbridge PROstate Biopsy DevicE (CamPROBE) study. J Clin Urol 2020;13(5):364–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415820932773 doi: 10.1177/2051415820932773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Lau YZ, Henderson A, Russell G, Ghosh S, Naji M, Goel A, Yamamoto H. Short term outcomes of zero-antibiotic co-axial needle-guided transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia (CTB): a prospective study. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19(Suppl. 2):e2307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-1683(20)34168-9
  48. Yamamoto H, Goshi S, Naji M, et al. Safety of zero-antibiotic co-axial needleguided transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB) under local anaesthesia: a prospective cohort study of 200 patients. J Clin Urol 2019;12(1 Suppl.):40.
  49. Yamamoto H, Lau YZ, Russell G, et al. Office-based transperineal prostate biopsies under local anaesthesia with cognitive registration: technique, immediate patient perception and cancer detection – a prospective study. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19:e2338.
  50. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Checklist for Cohort Studies (The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for Use in JBI Systematic Reviews). 2017. URL: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Cohort_Studies2017_0.pdf (accessed 10 November 2021).
  51. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Checklist for Case Series (The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for Use in JBI Systematic Reviews). 2017. URL: https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Case_Series2017_0.pdf (accessed 10 November 2021).
  52. ISRCTN. A Study That Aims to Find Out in the NHS What Is the Best Way to Take a Prostate Biopsy to Determine if a Man has Prostate Cancer (the TRANSLATE Trial). 2021. URL: www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN98159689
  53. Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit. TRANSLATE Trial Website Oxford: Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit; 2021. URL: https://translate.octru.ox.ac.uk/welcome-translate-trial (accessed 27 October 2021).
  54. Bryant RJ, Lamb AD, Campbell T, et al. A Randomised Controlled Trial of TRANSrectal Biopsy Versus Local Anaesthetic Transperineal Biopsy Evaluation (TRANSLATE) of Potentially Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: [study protocol] [AIC]. V2.0 ed. Oxford: The University of Oxford and Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; 2021.
  55. Albany Medical College. Prostate Biopsy, Transrectal vs. Transperineal: Efficacy and Complications. 2021.
  56. NCT. Evaluation of Transperineal Biopsy under Local Anesthesia. 2021. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/ NCT04843566 (accessed 22 August 2024).
  57. NCT. Randomized Trial Comparing Transperineal vs. Transrectal MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy. 2021. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/ NCT04815876 (accessed 22 August 2024).
  58. ANZCTR. Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Under Local Anaesthetic Compared to General Anaesthetic for Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer. 2020. URL: www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=379787&isReview=true (accessed 10 June 2021).
  59. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Transperineal Biopsy for Diagnosing Prostate Cancer; Project Documents. 2022. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-dg10043/documents (accessed 14 August 2022).
  60. Strings Attached: CADTH Database Search Filters. Ottawa: CADTH; 2021. URL: www.cadth.ca/strings-attached-cadths-database-search-filters (accessed 17 June 2021).
  61. Caro JJ, Eddy DM, Kan H, Kaltz C, Patel B, Eldessouki R, Briggs AH. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health 2014;17(2):174–82. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(36):iiiix1–ivxi158. https://doi/org/10.3310/hta8360 doi: 10.3310/hta8360. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Wilson ECF, Wreford A, Tamer P, Leonard K, Brechka H, Gnanapragasam VJ. Economic evaluation of transperineal versus transrectal devices for local anaesthetic prostate biopsies. PharmacoEcon Open 2021;5:737–53. https://doi/org/10.1007/s41669-021-00277-4 doi: 10.1007/s41669-021-00277-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  64. Brown LC, Ahmed HU, Faria R, El-Shater Bosaily A, Gabe R, Kaplan RS, et al. Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study. Health Technol Assess 2018;22(39):1–176. https://doi/org/10.3310/hta22390 doi: 10.3310/hta22390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  65. Faria R, Soares MO, Spackman E, Ahmed HU, Brown LC, Kaplan R, et al. Optimising the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS). Eur Urol 2018;73(1):23–30. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.018 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Zani EL, Clark OA, Rodrigues Netto N Jr. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;2011(5):CD06576. https://doi/org/10.1002/14651858.CD006576.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006576.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  67. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Management. NICE Guideline [NG131]. Health Economic Model Report. 2019. [PubMed]
  68. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Diagnostics Assessment Programme Manual. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2011. [PubMed]
  69. Blazevski A, Scheltema MJ, Yuen B, Masand N, Nguyen TV, Delprado W, et al. Oncological and quality-of-life outcomes following focal irreversible electroporation as primary treatment for localised prostate cancer: a biopsy-monitored prospective cohort. Eur Urol Onco 2020;3(3):283–90. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.04.008 doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Essink-Bot ML, de Koning HJ, Nijs HG, Kirkels WJ, van der Maas PJ, Schröder FH. Short-term effects of population-based screening for prostate cancer on health-related quality of life. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90(12):925–31. https://doi/org/10.1093/jnci/90.12.925 doi: 10.1093/jnci/90.12.925. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020;24(37):1–176. doi: 10.3310/hta24370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  72. Hamid S, Donaldson IA, Hu Y, Rodell R, Villarini B, Bonmati E, et al. The SmartTarget biopsy trial: a prospective, within-person randomised, blinded trial comparing the accuracy of visual-registration and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound image-fusion targeted biopsies for prostate cancer risk stratification. Eur Urol 2019;75(5):733–40. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.007 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  73. 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(19):1767–77. https://doi/org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Peters M, Maenhout M, Van Der Voort Van Zyp JRN, et al. Focal salvage iodine-125 brachytherapy for prostate cancer recurrences after primary radiotherapy: a retrospective study regarding toxicity biochemical outcome and quality of life. Radiother Oncol 2014;112(1):77–82. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.06.013 doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2014.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Sefik E, Eker A, Gunlusoy B, Celik S, Bozkurt IH, Basmaci I, et al. The effect of alpha blocker treatment prior to prostate biopsy on voiding functions, pain scores and health-related quality-of-life outcomes: a prospective randomized trial. Prog Urol 2020;30(4):198–204. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.purol.2019.12.006 doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2019.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Shankar PR, Maturen KE, George AK, Borza T, Ellimoottil C, Montgomery JS, et al. Temporary health impact of prostate MRI and transrectal prostate biopsy in active surveillance prostate cancer patients. J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16(10):1385–92. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.11.031 doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.11.031. [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. Vasarainen H, Malmi H, Määttänen L, Ruutu M, Tammela T, Taari K, et al. Effects of prostate cancer screening on health-related quality of life: results of the Finnish arm of the European randomized screening trial (ERSPC). Acta Oncol 2013;52(8):1615–21. https://doi/org/10.3109/0284186X.2013.802837 doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2013.802837. [DOI] [PubMed]
  78. Booth N, Rissanen P, Tammela TL, Määttänen L, Taari K, Auvinen A. Health-related quality of life in the Finnish trial of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014;65(1):39–47. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.041 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.041. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. Drummond FJ, Kinnear H, Donnelly C, O'Leary E, O'Brien K, Burns RM, et al. Establishing a population-based patient-reported outcomes study (PROMs) using national cancer registries across two jurisdictions: the Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience (PiCTure) study. BMJ Open 2015;5(4):e006851. https://doi/org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006851 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  80. Farkkila N, Torvinen S, Roine RP, Sintonen H, Hänninen J, Taari K, Saarto T. Health-related quality of life among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients with end-stage disease. Qual Life Res 2014;23(4):1387–94. https://doi/org/10.1007/s11136-013-0562-y doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0562-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Gavin AT, Donnelly D, Donnelly C, Drummond FJ, Morgan E, Gormley GJ, Sharp L. Effect of investigation intensity and treatment differences on prostate cancer survivor’s physical symptoms, psychological well-being and health-related quality of life: a two country cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2016;6(12):e012952. https://doi/org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012952 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  82. Torvinen S, Färkkilä N, Sintonen H, Saarto T, Roine RP, Taari K. Health-related quality of life in prostate cancer. Acta Oncol 2013;52(6):1094–101. https://doi/org/10.3109/0284186x.2012.760848 doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2012.760848. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Watson E, Shinkins B, Frith E, Neal D, Hamdy F, Walter F, et al. Symptoms, unmet needs, psychological well-being and health status in survivors of prostate cancer: implications for redesigning follow-up. BJU Int 2016;117(6B):E10–19. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.13122 doi: 10.1111/bju.13122. [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. Ramsay CR, Adewuyi TE, Gray J, Hislop J, Shirley MD, Jayakody S, et al. Ablative therapy for people with localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(49):1–490. https://doi/org/10.3310/hta19490 doi: 10.3310/hta19490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. Marenco Jimenez JL, Claps F, Ramón-Borja JC, Mascarós Martinez JM, Gutierrez AW, Lozano AGF, et al. Rebiopsy rate after transperineal or transrectal prostate biopsy. Prostate Int 2021;9(2):78–81. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.prnil.2020.10.001 doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2020.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  86. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Apalutamide with Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Treating Hormone-Sensitive Metastatic Prostate Cancer [TA741]. 2021. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta741 (accessed September 2021). [PubMed]
  87. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Enzalutamide for Treating Hormone-Sensitive Metastatic Prostate Cancer Technology Appraisal Guidance [TA712]. 2021. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta712 (accessed September 2021). [PubMed]
  88. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Apalutamide with Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Treating High-risk Hormone-relapsed Non-metastatic Prostate Cancer [TA740]. 2021. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta740 (accessed September 2021). [PubMed]
  89. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2020. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2020.
  90. NHS England. 2019/20 National Cost Collection Data Publication. 2019. URL: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/2019-20-national-cost-collection-data-publication (accessed August 2024).
  91. Kirby RS, Roehrborn C, Boyle P, Bartsch G, Jardin A, Cary MM, et al., Prospective European Doxazosin and Combination Therapy Study Investigators. Efficacy and tolerability of doxazosin and finasteride, alone or in combination, in treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: the Prospective European Doxazosin and Combination Therapy (PREDICT) trial. Urology 2003;61(1):119–26. https://doi/org/10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02114-3 doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02114-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. The Royal College of Surgeons of England. Results of the NPCA Prospective Audit in England and Wales for Men Diagnosed from 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019. 2021.
  93. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MGM. 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(3):438–50. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. 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(1):133–41. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.15062 doi: 10.1111/bju.15062. [DOI] [PubMed]
  95. Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, Doble A, Goodwin L, et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ 2012;344:d7894. https://doi/org/10.1136/bmj.d7894 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  96. Pepe P, Aragona F. Morbidity after transperineal prostate biopsy in 3000 patients undergoing 12 vs 18 vs more than 24 needle cores. Urology 2013;81(6):1142–6. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.02.019 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.02.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. 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(1):97–103. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.15039 doi: 10.1111/bju.15039. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Gnanapragasam VJ, Lophatananon A, Wright KA, Muir KR, Gavin A, Greenberg DC. Improving clinical risk stratification at diagnosis in primary prostate cancer: a prognostic modelling study. PLOS Med 2016;13(8):e1002063. https://doi/org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002063 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  99. Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C, Cruickshank M, Ford JA, Fraser C, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2013;17(20):vii1–xix281. https://doi/org/10.3310/hta17200 doi: 10.3310/hta17200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (October 2021). London: British Medical Association & Royal Pharmaceutical Society; 2021.
  101. Department of Health and Social Care. Drugs and Pharmaceutical Electronic Market Information Tool (eMIT). 2020. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/drugs-and-pharmaceutical-electronic-market-information-emit (accessed October 2021).
  102. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Walsh E, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375(15):1425–37. https://doi/org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606221 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  103. James ND, Sydes MR, Clarke NW, Mason MD, Dearnaley DP, Spears MR, et al., STAMPEDE Investigators. Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387(10024):1163–77. https://doi/org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01037-5 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01037-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  104. Chi KN, Agarwal N, Bjartell A, Chung BH, Pereira de Santana Gomes AJ, Given R, et al. Apalutamide for metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;381(1):13–24. https://doi/org/10.1056/NEJMoa1903307 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903307. [DOI] [PubMed]
  105. Armstrong AJ, Szmulewitz RZ, Petrylak DP, Holzbierlein J, Villers A, Azad A, et al. ARCHES: a randomized, phase III study of androgen deprivation therapy with enzalutamide or placebo in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019;37(32):2974–86. https://doi/org/10.1200/jco.19.00799 doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  106. Round J, Jones L, Morris S. Estimating the cost of caring for people with cancer at the end of life: a modelling study. Palliat Med 2015;29(10):899–907. https://doi/org/10.1177/0269216315595203 doi: 10.1177/0269216315595203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  107. Ara R, Brazier JE. Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health 2010;13(5):509–18. https://doi/org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  108. Lee K, Drekonja DM, Enns EA. Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for transrectal prostate biopsy in an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance. Value Health 2018;21(3):310–7. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.3016 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.3016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  109. Barry HC, Ebell MH, Hickner J. Evaluation of suspected urinary tract infection in ambulatory women: a cost–utility analysis of office-based strategies. J Fam Pract 1997;44(1):49–60. [PubMed]
  110. Drabinski A, Williams G, Formica C. Observational evaluation of health state utilities among a cohort of sepsis patients. Value Health 2001;4:128–9. https://doi/org/10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.40202-165.x
  111. Lopez JF, Campbell A, Omer A, Stroman L, Bondad J, Austin T, et al. Local anaesthetic transperineal (LATP) prostate biopsy using a probe-mounted transperineal access system: a multicentre prospective outcome analysis. BJU Int 2021;128(3):311–8. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.15337 doi: 10.1111/bju.15337. [DOI] [PubMed]
  112. University of Surrey. Diagnostic Histopathology Pricing [updated August 2022]. URL: www.surrey.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Diagnostic-Histopathology-Prices.pdf (accessed 17 May 2021).
  113. Jimenez JLM, Claps F, Ramon-Borja JC, Mascarós Martinez JM, Gutierrez AW, Lozano AGF, et al. Rebiopsy rate after transperineal or transrectal prostate biopsy. Prostate Int 2021;9(2):78–81. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.prnil.2020.10.001 doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2020.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  114. Berry B, Parry M, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Cowling TE, Aggarwal A, et al. Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19(Suppl. 2):e2311. https://doi/org/10.1016/S2666-1683(20)34171-9 doi: 10.1111/bju.15039. [DOI] [PubMed]
  115. Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Brawley OW, Gomella LG, Marberger M, Montorsi F, et al. Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362(13):1192–202. https://doi/org/10.1056/NEJMoa0908127 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908127. [DOI] [PubMed]
  116. Adshead J, Simpson N, El-Taji O, et al. P12-1 Readmissions, sepsis and costs of 200,000 NHS prostate biopsies-interrogation of HES data for TRUS vs TP biopsy between 2012–2018. J Clin Urol 2019;12:77–8.
  117. Chae Y, Kim Y-J, Kim T, Yun SJ, Lee S-C, Kim W-J. The comparison between transperineal and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy. Korean J Uro 2009;50(2):119–24. https://doi/org/10.4111/kju.2009.50.2.119
  118. Eldred-Evans D, Brittain J, Servian P, Miah S, Tam H, Ahmed H, Winkler M. The role of multi-parametric MRI as a triage test: a propensity-matched comparison of a MRI-triage and a TRUS-biopsy pathway. Eur Urol Suppl 2018;17(2):e695–96. https://doi/org/10.1016/S1569-9056(18)31319-8
  119. Han KS, Lee KH, Korean Urologic Oncology Society Prostate Cancer Study Group. Factors influencing pain during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008;11(2):139–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4501004 doi: 10.1038/sj.pcan.4501004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  120. Israël B, Immerzeel JJFM, Van Der Leest MMG, Hannink GJ, Zámecnik P, Bomers JGR, et al. P0943 – transrectal and transperineal MRI-guided prostate cancer pathways in biopsy-naïve men. Eur Urol 2021;79:S1327–8. https://doi/org/10.1016/S0302-2838(21)01316-6
  121. Kasivisvanathan V, Arya M, Ahmed HU, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, Emberton M. A randomized controlled trial to investigate magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy as an alternative diagnostic strategy to transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urol Oncolo Semin Orig Investig 2015;33(3):156–7 https://doi/org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.12.003. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  122. Kawakami S, Yamamoto S, Numao N, Ishikawa Y, Kihara K, Fukui I. Direct comparison between transrectal and transperineal extended prostate biopsy for the detection of cancer. Int Jo Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc 2007;14(8):719–24. https://doi/org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2007.01810.x doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2007.01810.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  123. Lavoipierre AM. Transrectal ultrasound and prostate-specific antigen in prostate cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2008;52(5):530. https://doi/org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02009.x doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.2008.02009.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  124. Lim LY, Tan GH, Zainuddin ZM, et al Prospective evaluation of using multi-parametric MRI in cognitive fusion prostate biopsy compared to standard systematic 12-core biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018;122(Suppl. 4):7. doi: 10.4103/UA.UA_98_19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  125. Lim LY, Tan GH, Zainuddin ZM, Fam XI, Goh EH, Syaris OS, et al. Prospective evaluation of using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in cognitive fusion prostate biopsy compared to the standard systematic 12-core biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer. Urol Ann 2020;12(3):276–82. https://doi/org/10.4103/UA.UA_98_19 doi: 10.4103/UA.UA_98_19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  126. Lo KL, Chui KL, Leung CH, LIM K, Ng T, Wong J, et al. Outcomes of transperineal and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Hong Kong Med J 2019;25(3):209–15. https://doi/org/10.12809/hkmj187599 doi: 10.12809/hkmj187599. [DOI] [PubMed]
  127. NCT. Perineal Versus Rectal Approach for Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Iatrogenic Infections. 2018. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/ NCT03496142 (accessed 22 August 2024).
  128. NCT. Whether Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Under Local-Anaesthesia Using a Transperineal-access System is Non-inferior to Standard Transrectal Biopsy to Detect Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-naïve Men. 2019. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/ NCT04108871 (accessed 22 August 2024).
  129. Neale A, Stroman L, Kum F, Jabarkhyl D, Di Benedetto A, Mehan N, et al. Targeted and systematic cognitive freehand-guided transperineal biopsy: is there still a role for systematic biopsy? BJU Int 2020;126(2):280–5. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.15092 doi: 10.1111/bju.15092. [DOI] [PubMed]
  130. Pahwa S, Schiltz NK, Ponsky LE, Lu Z, Griswold MA, Gulani V. Cost-effectiveness of MR Imaging-guided strategies for detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Radiology 2017;285(1):157–66. https://doi/org/10.1148/radiol.2017162181 doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  131. Pal RP, Ahmad R, Trecartan S, Voss J, Ahmed S, Bazo A, et al. A single center evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging against transperineal prostate mapping biopsy: an analysis of men with benign histology and insignificant cancer following transrectal ultrasound biopsy. J Urol 2018;200(2):302–8. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.072 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.072. [DOI] [PubMed]
  132. Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, Pennisi M. Multiparametric MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy: advantages of a transperineal approach. Anticancer Res 2017;37(6):3291–4. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.11695. [DOI] [PubMed]
  133. Postema AW, Scheltema MJV, Mannaerts CK, Van Sloun RJG, Idzenga T, Mischi M, et al. The prostate cancer detection rates of CEUS-targeted versus MRI-targeted versus systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in biopsy-naïve men: a prospective, comparative clinical trial using the same patients. BMC Urol 2017;17(1):1–8. https://doi/org/10.1186/s12894-017-0213-7 doi: 10.1186/s12894-017-0213-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  134. Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol 2000;163(1):163–7. https://doi/org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67995-5 [PubMed]
  135. Ristau BT, Allaway M, Cendo D, Hart J, Riley J, Parousis V, Albertsen PC. Free-hand transperineal prostate biopsy provides acceptable cancer detection and minimizes risk of infection: evolving experience with a 10-sector template. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 2018;36(12):528.e15–20. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.09.013 doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  136. Roberts M, Macdonald A, Teloken P, et al. Morbidity and cost implications of shifting from routine transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy to mpMRI triage with selective transperineal prostate biopsy: a 12-year retrospective analysis from a tertiary referral centre. BJU Int 2020;125(Suppl. 1):99.
  137. 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 2021;24(1):169–76. https://doi/org/10.1038/s41391-020-0263-x doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-0263-x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  138. Rochester MA, Griffin S, Chappell B, McLoughlin J. A prospective randomised trial of extended core prostate biopsy protocols utilizing 12 versus 15 cores. Urol Int 2009;83(2):155–9. https://doi/org/10.1159/000230016 doi: 10.1159/000230016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  139. Rodriguez Socarras ME, Gomez Rivas J, Cuadros Rivera V, et al. Prostate mapping for cancer diagnosis: the Madrid Protocol. Transperineal prostate biopsies using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion and micro-ultrasound guided biopsies. J Urol 2020;204(4):726–33. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001083 doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001083. [DOI] [PubMed]
  140. Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, Tichy D, Kopp-Schneider A, Fenchel M, et al. Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 tesla. Eur Radiol 2014;24(2):344–52. https://doi.org/10/1007/s00330-013-3017-5 doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-3017-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  141. Rojas Claros O, Muttin F, Barbosa RRT, Gallardo AC, Barret E, Cathala N, et al. Comparison of cancer detection rates in micro-ultrasound biopsies versus robotic ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsies for prostate cancer. Eur Urol Suppl 2019;18(11):e3503. https://doi/org/10.1016/S1569-9056(19)34657-3
  142. Salagierski M, Kania P, Wierzcholowski W, Poźniak-Balicka R. The role of a template-assisted cognitive transperineal prostate biopsy technique in patients with benign transrectal prostate biopsies: a preliminary experience. Cent Eur J Urol 2019;72(1):15–8. https://doi/org/10.5173/ceju.2018.1840 doi: 10.5173/ceju.2018.1840. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  143. Satoh T, Matsumoto K, Fujita T, Tabata K-I, Okusa H, Tsuboi T, et al. Cancer core distribution in patients diagnosed by extended transperineal prostate biopsy. Urology 2005;66(1):114–8. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.01.051 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.01.051. [DOI] [PubMed]
  144. Self D, Kam J, Louie-Johnsun M, et al Clinical impact of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy on prostate cancer treatment: a single surgeon experience of cognitive-guided and MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy. Can Urol Assoc J 2018;12(6 Suppl. 2):S130.
  145. Shigemura K, Arakawa S, Yamanaka K, Kataoka N, Yuien K, Fujisawa M. Significance of lateral biopsy specimens during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies in Japanese men. Int J Urol 2007;14(10):935–8. https://doi/org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2007.01865.x doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2007.01865.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  146. Sivaraman A, Sanchez-Salas R, Ahmed HU, Barret E, Cathala N, Mombet A, et al. Clinical utility of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate after negative magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal biopsy. Urol Oncol 2015;33(7):329.e7–11. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.04.005 doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  147. Song W, Kang M, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, Lee HM, Jeon HG. The clinical utility of transperineal template-guided saturation prostate biopsy for risk stratification after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. Investig Clin Urol 2019;60(6):454–62. https://doi/org/10.4111/icu.2019.60.6.454 doi: 10.4111/icu.2019.60.6.454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  148. Stabile A, Dell’Oglio P, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Brembilla G, Cristel G, et al. Not all multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted bopsies are equal: the impact of the type of approach and operator expertise on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2018;1(2):120–8. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  149. Suga K, Akakura K, Ueda T, Furuya Y, Akimoto S, Ito H. Association between clinical stage of prostate cancer and pathological findings of random systematic transperineal core biopsy under transrectal ultrasonography. Int J Clin Oncol 1999;4(6):353–7. https://doi/org/10.1007/s101470050084
  150. Sulaiman SK, Margaret S, Bob Y, et al. Is our local multi-parametric MRI reliable enough to pave the future for targeted image guided biopsies? Br J Surg 2019;106(Suppl. 6):165.
  151. 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(1):71–7. https://doi/org/10.1038/pcan.2009.42 doi: 10.1038/pcan.2009.42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  152. Tamhankar A, El Taji O, Vasdev N, et al. P9-7 The clinical and financial implications of a decade of prostate biopsies in the NHS – interrogation of the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Data 2008–2019. J Clin Urol 2020;13:62. doi: 10.1111/bju.15062. [DOI] [PubMed]
  153. Taverna G, Bozzini G, Grizzi F, Seveso M, Mandressi A, Balzarini L, et al. Endorectal multiparametric 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging associated with systematic cognitive biopsies does not increase prostate cancer detection rate: a randomized prospective trial. World J Urol 2016;34(6):797–803. https://doi/org/10.1007/s00345-015-1711-4 doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1711-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  154. Taverna G, Bozzini G, Seveso M, de Francesco O, Bono P, Provenzano M, et al. Endorectal multiparametric 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging associated to systematic cognitive biopsies do not increase prostate cancer detection rate: a randomized prospective trial. J Urol 2016;195(4):E252. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.654 doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1711-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  155. Teoh JYC, Yuen SKK, Tsu JHL, Wong CK, Ho BS, Ng AT, et al. Prostate cancer detection upon transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in relation to digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen level: what to expect in the Chinese population? Asian J Androl 2015;17(5):821–5. https://doi/org/10.4103/1008-682X.144945 doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.144945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  156. Tilak G, Tuncali K, Song SE, Tokuda J, Olubiyi O, Fennessy F, et al. 3T MR-guided in-bore transperineal prostate biopsy: a comparison of robotic and manual needle-guidance templates. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42(1):63–71. https://doi/org/10.1002/jmri.24770 doi: 10.1002/jmri.24770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  157. Tschirdewahn S, Wiesenfarth M, Bonekamp D, Püllen L, Reis H, Panic A, et al. Detection of significant prostate cancer using target saturation in transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography-fusion biopsy. Eur Urol Focus 2021;7(6):1300–7. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.020 doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.020. [DOI] [PubMed]
  158. Valerio M, McCartan N, Freeman A, Punwani S, Emberton M, Ahmed HU. Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 2015;33(10):424.e9–16. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.06.012 doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.06.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  159. Vanni AP, Schaal CH, Costa RP, Sala FC. Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? Int Braz J Urol 2004;30(2):114–8. https://doi/org/10.1590/s1677-55382004000200005 doi: 10.1590/s1677-55382004000200005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  160. Vezelis A, Platkevicius G, Kincius M, Gumbys L, Naruševičiūtė I, Briedienė R, et al. Systematic and MRI-cognitive targeted transperineal prostate biopsy accuracy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer after previous negative biopsy and persisting suspicion of malignancy. Medicina 2021;57(1):57. https://doi/org/10.3390/medicina57010057 doi: 10.3390/medicina57010057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  161. Wang L, Wang XF, Zhao WF, Zhao Z, Li Z, Fei S, et al. Surface-projection-based transperineal cognitive fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate: an original technique with a good cancer detection rate. BMC Urol 2019;19(1):1–7. https://doi/org/10.1186/s12894-019-0535-8 doi: 10.1186/s12894-019-0535-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  162. Westhoff N, Baessler B, von Hardenberg J, Hetjens S, Porubsky S, Siegel F, et al. Systematic prostate biopsy still matters: a comprehensive analysis of MRI/TRUS-fusion targeted prostate biopsies across different indications. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 2019;37(10):678–87. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  163. Williams M, Ranasinghe SV, Donato P, et al. A retrospective analysis of transperineal cognitive fusion biopsy of high grade multi-parametric MRI lesions (PIRADS 4-5) in helping to detect clinically significant prostate cancer lesions. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol 2018;14:52.
  164. Williams M, Ranasinghe SV, Donato P, et al. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) in detecting prostate cancer: an initial experience in a tertiary centre. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol 2018;14(Suppl. 2):51.
  165. Yamada Y, Shiraishi T, Ueno A, Ueda T, Fujihara A, Naitoh Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted prostate biopsy: comparison between computer-software-based fusion versus cognitive fusion technique in biopsy-naïve patients. Int J Urol 2020;27(1):67–71. https://doi/org/10.1111/iju.14127 doi: 10.1111/iju.14127. [DOI] [PubMed]
  166. Yang B, Sulaiman S, Suhail N, et al Introducing PrecisionPointTM transperineal biopsy into a district general hospital: a viable alternative to TRUS and templates? Br J Surg 2019;106(Suppl. 6):157.
  167. Yaxley AJ, Yaxley JW, Thangasamy IA, Ballard E, Pokorny MR. Comparison between target magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in-gantry and cognitively directed transperineal or transrectal-guided prostate biopsies for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 MRI lesions. BJU Int 2017;120:43–50. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.13971 doi: 10.1111/bju.13971. [DOI] [PubMed]
  168. Yunkai Z, Yaqing C, Ren W, Yongchang Z. Are transition zone biopsies necessary in transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy protocol? Results of a Chinese population-based study. Clin Imaging 2010;34(1):43–6. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2009.02.003 doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2009.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  169. Zhang K, Zhang Z, Liu M, Zhu G, Roobol MJ. Comparison of clinically significant prostate cancer detection by MRI cognitive biopsy and in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy for naïve biopsy patients. Transl Androl Urol 2020;9(2):243–9. https://doi/org/10.21037/tau.2020.02.20 doi: 10.21037/tau.2020.02.20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  170. Zhang K, Zhang Z, Zhu G, et al. Comparison of clinically significant prostate cancer detection by MRI cognitive biopsy and in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy for naïve biopsy patients. Int J Urol 2019;26(Suppl. 2):82. doi: 10.21037/tau.2020.02.20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  171. Zhang Q, Wang W, Zhang B, Shi J, Fu Y, Li D, et al. Comparison of free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy with transperineal 12-core systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a single-center prospective study in China. Int Urol Nephrol 2017;49(3):439–48. https://doi/org/10.1007/s11255-016-1484-8 doi: 10.1007/s11255-016-1484-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  172. Zhang Q, Wang W, Yang R, Zhang G, Zhang B, Li W, et al. Free-hand transperineal targeted prostate biopsy with real-time fusion imaging of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound: single-center experience in China. Int Urol Nephrol 2015;47:727–33. https://doi/org/10.1007/s11255-015-0957-5 doi: 10.1007/s11255-015-0957-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  173. Zhao HX, Zhu Q, Wang Z. Detection of prostate cancer with three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound: correlation with biopsy results. Br J Radiol 2012;85(1014):714–9. https://doi/org/10.1259/bjr/68418881 doi: 10.1259/bjr/68418881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  174. Zhou SR, Chang E, Patankar A, Huang J, Marks LS, Natarajan S. Prostate cancer detection rate of freehand versus 3-dimensional template mapping biopsy using a magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion device in biopsy naïve men. J Urol 2020;203(4):699–705. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000587 doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000587. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  175. Al-Dhahir W, Sharma A, Subin F, et al. Freehand transperineal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate under local anaesthetic: a cost effective and viable diagnostic procedure for prostate cancer? Br J Surg 2019;106(Suppl. 6):156.
  176. Chan CK, Leung CH, Liu YZ, Ling L, Lo KL, Li KM, et al. PT432 - Road to Trexit: a territory-wide study on the predictors of 30-day complications in transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19:e2305. https://doi/org/10.1016/S2666-1683(20)34166-5
  177. Chan CK, Leung C-H, Liu Y-Z, Ling L, Lo K-L, Li K-M, et al. MP75-07 A territory-wide study on the predictors of 30-day complications in transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy. J Urol 2020;203(Suppl. 4):e1144–44. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000961.07
  178. Cole A, Lee M, Raisky J, Qi J, Linsell S, Martin R, et al. MI trexit: pilot evaluation of a state-wide initiative for in-office transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia. J Urol 2019;201(4 Suppl. 1):e267. https://doi/org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555492.74947.ad
  179. Cole A, QI J, Walker C, Wu R, Linsell S, Johnson A, et al. MP58-18 Transrectal MRI/US fusion biopsy doubles the risk of infectious hospitalization – analysis of a statewide collaboratives. J Urol 2020;203(Suppl. 4):e878. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000927.018
  180. Demozzi E, Cavicchioli F, Molinari A, Carbognin G, Cavalleri S. P211 – Detection of prostate cancer: Comparison between ‘In-bore’ MRI-guided biopsies and cognitive transperineal-ultrasound-guided biopsies. Eur Urol Suppl. 2018;17(8):311–2. https://doi/org/10.1016/S1569-9056(18)33305-0
  181. Di Franco CA, Jallous H, Porru D, Giliberto GL, Cebrelli T, Tinelli C, Rovereto B. et al. A retrospective comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2017;89(1):55–9. https://doi/org/10.4081/aiua.2017.1.55 doi: 10.4081/aiua.2017.1.55. [DOI] [PubMed]
  182. Elkhoury J, Jiao C, Navani R, Lin Y, Johns-Putra L, Dodds L, et al. PT436: Transperineal template biopsy is both safer and more cost-effective than transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in the Australian public hospital setting. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19:e2310. https://doi/org/10.1016/S2666-1683(20)34170-7
  183. Ferrante S, Hawken S, Montie J, Miller D, Wu RC, Ellimoottil C, et al. MP20-03 Patient experience for transperineal biopsy under local anesthesia versus transrectal biopsy: results from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative. J Urol 2020;203(Suppl. 4):e307–8. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000853.03
  184. Ferriero MC, Flammia RS, Oderda M, Forte V, Peltier A, Kumar P, et al. MP36-02 Periprocedural and diagnostic outcomes of transrectal versus transperineal US/MRI guided fusion prostate biopsy: multi-institutional propensity score matched pair analysis. J Urol 2019;201(Suppl. 4):e514–15. https://doi/org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556012.63289.68
  185. Islam M, Silva RDD, Gustafson D, Nogueira L, Clark N, Kim F. MP20-06 A comparison of infectious outcomes between in-office transperineal prostate biopsies without antibiotic prophylaxis and transrectal prostate biopsies. J Urol 2020;203(Suppl. 4):e309. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000853.06
  186. Islam M, Quach A, Kim F, Da Silva RD. V14-09 Infectious outcomes between in-office transperineal prostate biopsies without antibiotic prophylaxis and transrectal prostate biopsies. J Urol 2021;206(Suppl. 3):e1168. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002111.09
  187. Lai J, Auffenberg G, Hudnall M, Pham M, Schaeffer E, Ghomrawi H, Halpern J. MP17-14 Cost-effectiveness of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Urol 2021;206(Suppl. 3):e313. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002002.14
  188. Lovegrove C, Brown L, Miah S, et al. P5-4 Comparison of TRUS-biopsy to transperineal template mapping biopsies stratified by MRI score within the PROMIS trial. J Clin Urol 2019;12:38. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000455. [DOI] [PubMed]
  189. Lovegrove C, Brown L, Miah S, El-Shater Bosaily A, Kaplan R, Freeman A, et al. MP30-08 Comparison of TRUS-biopsy to transperineal template mapping biopsies stratified by MRI score within the PROMIS trial. J Urol 2019;201(Suppl. 4):e425–6. https://doi/org/10.1097/01.JU.0000557563.97737.fd doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000455. [DOI] [PubMed]
  190. Marra G, Eldred-Evans D, Van Hemelrijck M, Challacombe B, Cahill D, Polson A, et al. Concordance of transperineal, transrectal and transperineal sector-based template approaches with 305 radical prostatectomies: a multicentre study. BJU International Conference: 71st annual scientific meeting of the British Association of Urological Surgeons, BAUS 2015 United Kingdom 2015;115:61. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.13136
  191. Maruf M, George A, Wei J, Montie J, Miller D, Wu RC, et al. PD38-08 Multi-institutional prospective validation of the novel Michigan urological surgery improvement collaborative transperineal biopsy template. J Urol 2020;203(Suppl. 4):e804. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000917.08
  192. Newman T, Stroman L, Hadjipavlou M, Mulhem W, Ioannides D, Chan K, et al. PT438 – a switch from transrectal biopsy to cognitive freehand transperineal prostate biopsy can reduce sepsis where targeted antibiotics for resistant rectal flora have failed. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020;19:e2312. https://doi/org/10.1016/S2666-1683(20)34172-0
  193. Ng CK, Lo KL, Lim K, et al. Zero sepsis rate: a new era of transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2019;123(Suppl. 1):6.
  194. Sharma A, Al-Dhahir W, Subin F, Mulholland C. Post-MRI primary local anaesthetic freehand transperineal prostate biopsy significantly reduces biopsy rate in comparison to trans-rectal prostate biopsy: implications for service burden in a secondary-care referral centre in Northern Ireland. Eur Urol Suppl 2019;18(5):e2550. https://doi/org/10.1016/S1569-9056(19)32653-3
  195. Stroman L, Neale A, Hage OE, et al PD64-03 TREXIT – a year on. Making a clean break from trans-rectal prostate biopsy. J Urol 2019;201(Suppl. 4):e1181–2. https://doi/org/10.1097/01.JU.0000557442.00399.ce
  196. Stroman L, Neale A, Kum F, Rusere J, Jabarkhyl D, Simpson N, et al. MP81-14 Local anesthetic, intravenous sedation or general anesthetic freehand guided transperineal prostate biopsies: does anesthetic modality impact cancer detection and adverse events? J Urol 2020;203(Suppl. 4):e1241. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000973.014
  197. Stroman L, Newman T, Hadjipavlou M, Ioannides D, Milliken C, Pinczes T, et al. MP81-18 A switch from transrectal biopsy to cognitive freehand transperineal prostate biopsy can reduce sepsis where targeted antibiotics for resistant rectal flora have failed. J Urol 2020;203(Suppl. 4):e1243. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000973.018
  198. Ting F, Van Leeuwen PJ, Thompson J, Shnier R, Moses D, Delprado W, Stricker PD. Assessment of the performance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy against a combined targeted plus systematic biopsy approach using 24-core transperineal template saturation mapping prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer 2016;2016:1–8. https://doi/org/10.1155/2016/3794738 doi: 10.1155/2016/3794738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  199. Urkmez A, Altok M, Demirel C, Davis J. Comparative outcomes of 2 different transperineal prostate biopsy techniques. J Urol 2020;203(Suppl. 4):e1237. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000973.05
  200. Urkmez A, Demirel C, Altok M, Tharakeswara B, Shapiro D, Davis J. PD56-01 Freehand versus grid-based transperineal prostate biopsy: a comparison of anatomic region yield and complications. J Urol 2021;206(Suppl. 3):e1003. https://doi/org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002090.01 doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001902. [DOI] [PubMed]
  201. Zattoni F, Marra G, Kasivisvanathan V, et al. P0958: transperineal vs. transrectal MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: evaluation of cancer detection risk and biopsy accuracy for clinical significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2021;79:S1348–S49.
  202. NCT. Impact of Magnetic Resonance and Biomarkers for Screening for Prostate Cancer. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/ NCT04283032 (accessed 22 August 2024).
  203. 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(4):524–32. https://doi/org/10.1038/s41391-018-0056-7 doi: 10.1038/s41391-018-0056-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  204. Cheng LJ, Soon SS, Tan TW, Tan CH, Lim TSK, Tay KJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of MRI targeted biopsy strategies for diagnosing prostate cancer in Singapore. BMC Health Serv Res 2021;21(1): 1–16. https://doi/org/10.1186/s12913-021-06916-0 doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06916-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  205. Cricco-Lizza E, Vanden Berg RNW, Laviana A, Pantuck M, Basourakos SP, Salami SS, et al. Comparative effectiveness and tolerability of transperineal MRI-targeted prostate biopsy under local versus sedation. Urology 2021;155:33–8. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.023 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.023. [DOI] [PubMed]
  206. Popert R, Kum F, MacAskill F, Stroman L, Zisengwe G, Rusere J, et al. Our first month of delivering the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway within the limitations of COVID-19 using local anaesthetic transperineal biopsy. BJU Int 2020;126(3):329–32. https://doi/org/10.1111/BJU.15120 doi: 10.1111/bju.15120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  207. Nicholson A, Mahon J, Boland A, Beale S, Dwan K, Fleeman N, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PROGENSA® prostate cancer antigen 3 assay and the Prostate Health Index in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(87):1–192. https://doi/org/10.3310/hta19870 doi: 10.3310/hta19870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  208. Cerantola Y, Dragomir A, Tanguay S, Bladou F, Aprikian A, Kassouf W. Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2016;34(3):119.e1–9. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.09.010 doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  209. de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM, Grutters JP. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur Urol 2014;66(3):430–6. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.012 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  210. Dijkstra S, Govers TM, Hendriks RJ, Schalken JA, Van Criekinge W, Van Neste L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a new urinary biomarker-based risk score compared to standard of care in prostate cancer diagnostics – a decision analytical model. BJU Int 2017;120(5):659–65. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.13861 doi: 10.1111/bju.13861. [DOI] [PubMed]
  211. Hao S, Karlsson A, Heintz E, Elfström KM, Nordström T, Clements M. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer screening: a microsimulation study. Value Health 2021;24:1763–72. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.06.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  212. Patel S, Rongen JJ, Futterer JJ, Boltyenkov A, Rovers MM. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness modeling study. Eur Urol ogy 2018;1(6):476–83. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.05.007 doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  213. Sathianathen NJ, Warlick CA, Weight CJ, Ordonez MA, Spilseth B, Metzger GJ, et al. A clinical prediction tool to determine the need for concurrent systematic sampling at the time of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy. BJU Int 2019;123(4):612–7. doi: 10.1111/bju.14617. [DOI] [PubMed]
  214. Venderink W, Govers TM, de Rooij M, Fütterer JJ, Sedelaar JPM. Cost-effectiveness comparison of imaging-guided prostate biopsy techniques: systematic transrectal ultrasound, direct in-bore MRI, and image fusion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;208(5):1058–63. https://doi/org/10.2214/ajr.16.17322 doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17322. [DOI] [PubMed]
  215. Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Kirkham A, Sahu M, Scott R, Allen C, et al. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a phase I/II trial. J Urol 2011;185(4):1246–54. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.079 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.079. [DOI] [PubMed]
  216. Aktas BK, Bulut S, Gokkaya CS, Ozden C, Salar R, Aslan Y, et al. Association of prostate volume with voiding impairment and deterioration in quality of life after prostate biopsy. Urology 2014;83(3):617–21. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  217. Awsare NS, Green JSA, Aldwinckle B, Hanbury DC, Boustead GB, McNicholas TA. The measurement of psychological distress in men being investigated for the presence of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008;11(4):384–9. https://doi/org/10.1038/pcan.2008.21 doi: 10.1038/pcan.2008.21. [DOI] [PubMed]
  218. Azzouzi AR, Barret E, Moore CM, Villers A, Allen C, Scherz A, et al. TOOKAD Soluble vascular-targeted photodynamic (VTP) therapy: determination of optimal treatment conditions and assessment of effects in patients with localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013;112(6):766–74. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.12265 doi: 10.1111/bju.12265. [DOI] [PubMed]
  219. Burns JF, Hurwitz LM, Levie KE, Caumont F, Brand TC, Rosner IL, et al. Impact of subsequent biopsies on comprehensive health related quality of life in patients with and without prostate cancer. J Urol 2019;201(5):916–22. https://doi/org/10.1097/ju.0000000000000024 doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  220. Cantor SB, Spann SJ, Volk RJ, et al. Prostate cancer screening: a decision analysis. J Fam Pract 1995;41(1):33–41. [PubMed]
  221. Chaussy C, Thuroff S. Results and side effects of high-intensity focused ultrasound in localized prostate cancer. J Endourol 2001;15(4):437–40; discussion 447. https://doi/org/10.1089/089277901300189501 doi: 10.1089/089277901300189501. [DOI] [PubMed]
  222. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Kirkham AP, Allen C, Freeman A, Barber J, et al., INDEX Study Group. A multi-centre prospective development study evaluating focal therapy using high intensity focused ultrasound for localised prostate cancer: the INDEX study. Contemp Clin Trials 2013;36(1):68–80. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.06.005 doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2013.06.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  223. Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Peters T, Oliver S, Brindle L, et al. Prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(14):1–88. doi: 10.3310/hta7140. [DOI] [PubMed]
  224. Egan J, Marhamati S, Carvalho FLF, Davis M, O'Neill J, Lee H, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy leads to durable improvement in urinary function and quality of life versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy without compromise on oncologic efficacy: single-surgeon series and step-by-step guide. Eur Urol 2021;79(6):839–57. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.010 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  225. Ganzer R, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Koch D, Baumunk D, Kuru T, et al. Prospective multicenter phase II study on focal therapy (hemiablation) of the prostate with high intensity focused ultrasound. J Urol 2018;199(4):983–9. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.033 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.033. [DOI] [PubMed]
  226. Ghai S, Louis AS, Van Vliet M, Lindner U, Haider MA, Hlasny E, et al. Real-time MRI-guided focused ultrasound for focal therapy of locally confined low-risk prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205(2):W177–84. https://doi/org/10.2214/AJR.14.13098 doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13098. [DOI] [PubMed]
  227. Gu M, Li W, Chen Q, Chen Y, Xu M, Wang Z. Prostate calculi can higher urinary retention probability and worsen uncomfortable feeling after prostate biopsy but not predict cancer. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8(4):6282–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  228. Koch MO, Gardner T, Cheng L, Fedewa RJ, Seip R, Sangvhi NT. Phase I/II trial of high intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of previously untreated localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2007;178(6):2366–71. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.014 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  229. Kok ET, Groeneveld FPMJ, Gouweloos J, Jonkheijm R, Bosch JR, Thomas S, Bohnen AM. Determinants of seeking of primary care for lower urinary tract symptoms: the Krimpen study in community-dwelling men. Eur Urol 2006;50(4):811–7. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.03.024 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.03.024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  230. Mettlin CJ, Murphy GP, Babaian RJ, Chesley A, Kane RA, Littrup PJ, et al. Observations on the early detection of prostate cancer from the American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project. Cancer 1997;80(9):1814–7. https://doi/org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19971101)80:9<1814::aid-cncr20>3.0.co;2-7 doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19971101)80:9<1814::aid-cncr20>3.0.co;2-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  231. Miki K, Kiba T, Sasaki H, Kido M, Aoki M, Takahashi H, et al. Transperineal prostate brachytherapy, using I-125 seed with or without adjuvant androgen deprivation, in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer: study protocol for a phase III, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. BMC Cancer 2010;10:572. https://doi/org/10.1186/1471-2407-10-572 doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  232. Natarajan S, Raman S, Priester AM, Garritano J, Margolis DJA, Lieu P et al. Focal laser ablation of prostate cancer: phase I clinical trial. J Urol 2016;196(1):68–75. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.083 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.083. [DOI] [PubMed]
  233. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Yan Y. Impact of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy on quality of life: a prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 cores. J Urol 2001;165(1):100–3. https://doi/org/10.1097/00005392-200101000-00025 doi: 10.1097/00005392-200101000-00025. [DOI] [PubMed]
  234. Pane-Alemany R, Ramirez-Garcia I, Carralero-Martinez A, Blanco-Ratto L, Kauffmann S, Sánchez E. Efficacy of transcutaneous perineal electrostimulation versus intracavitary anal electrostimulation in the treatment of urinary incontinence after a radical prostatectomy: randomized controlled trial study protocol. BMC Urol 2021;21:12. https://doi/org/10.1186/s12894-020-00718-y doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00718-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  235. Pisters LL, Von Eschenbach AC, Scott SM, Swanson DA, Dinney CPN, Pettaway CA, Babaian RJ. et al. The efficacy and complications of salvage cryotherapy of the prostate. J Urol 1997;157(3):921–5. https://doi/org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65084-5 [PubMed]
  236. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010;58(6):831–5. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.027 doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.027. [DOI] [PubMed]
  237. Uchida T, Baba S, Irie A, et al. Transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a multicenter study. Acta Urol Jpn 2005;51(10):651–58 [PubMed]
  238. Valerio M, Dickinson L, Ali A, Ramachandran N, Donaldson I, Freeman A, et al. A prospective development study investigating focal irreversible electroporation in men with localised prostate cancer: Nanoknife Electroporation Ablation Trial (NEAT). Contemp Clin Trials 2014;39(1):57–65. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.cct.2014.07.006 doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2014.07.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  239. Van De Ven WJM, Barentsz JO. Prostate cancer: MRI/US-guided biopsy: a viable alternative to TRUS-guidance. Nat Rev Urol 2013;10(10):559–60. https://doi/org/10.1038/nrurol.2013.179 doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2013.179. [DOI] [PubMed]
  240. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Mapping the EQ-5D index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2006;26(4):401–9. https://doi/org/10.1177/0272989x06290496 doi: 10.1177/0272989X06290496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  241. Ara R, Brazier J. Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value Health 2008;11(7):1131–43. https://doi/org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00352.x doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00352.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  242. Donnelly DW, Donnelly C, Kearney T, Weller D, Sharp L, Downing A, et al. Urinary, bowel and sexual health in older men from Northern Ireland. BJU Int 2018;122(5):845–57. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.14182 doi: 10.1111/bju.14182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  243. Downing A, Wright P, Hounsome L, Selby P, Wilding S, Watson E, et al. Quality of life in men living with advanced and localised prostate cancer in the UK: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20(3):436–47. https://doi/org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30780-0 doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30780-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  244. Glaser AW, Fraser LK, Corner J, Feltbower R, Morris EJA, Hartwell G, Richards M. Patient-reported outcomes of cancer survivors in England 1–5 years after diagnosis: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open 2013;3(4):e002317. https://doi/org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002317 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  245. Kuppen MCP, Westgeest HM, van den Eertwegh AJM, Coenen JL, van Moorselaar RJA, van den Berg P, et al. Health-related quality of life and pain in a real-world castration-resistant prostate cancer population: results from the PRO-CAPRI study in the Netherlands. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2020;18(3):e233–53. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.11.015 doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  246. Lemanska A, Poole K, Manders R, Marshall J, Nazar Z, Noble K, et al. Patient activation and patient-reported outcomes of men from a community pharmacy lifestyle intervention after prostate cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer 2022;30:347–58. https://doi/org/10.1007/s00520-021-06404-5 doi: 10.1007/s00520-021-06404-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  247. Lloyd AJ, Kerr C, Penton J, Knerer G. Health-related quality of life and health utilities in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: a survey capturing experiences from a diverse sample of UK patients. Value Health 2015;18(8):1152–7. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.08.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  248. Loeb S, Curnyn C, Walter D, Fagerlin A, Siebert U, Mühlberger N, et al. Health state utilities among contemporary prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Transl Androl Urol 2018;7(2):197–202. https://doi/org/10.21037/tau.2017.03.80 doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.03.80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  249. Lopez-Calderero I, Lopez-Fando L, Rios-Gonzalez E, Maisonobe P, Hernández-Yuste E, Sarmiento-Jordán M. Impact of locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer on the quality of life. Actas Urol Esp 2017;41(6):368–75. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2017.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2016.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  250. Maguire R, Drummond FJ, Hanly P, Gavin A, Sharp L. Problems sleeping with prostate cancer: exploring possible risk factors for sleep disturbance in a population-based sample of survivors. Support Care Cancer 2019;27(9):3365–73. https://doi/org/10.1007/s00520-018-4633-z doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4633-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  251. Murasawa H, Sugiyama T, Matsuoka Y, Okabe T, Hino A, Tanaka N, et al. Health utility and health-related quality of life of Japanese prostate cancer patients according to progression status measured using EQ-5D-5L and FACT-P. Qual Life Res 2019;28(9):2383–91. https://doi/org/10.1007/s11136-019-02184-y doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02184-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  252. Smith L, Downing A, Norman P, Wright P, Hounsome L, Watson E, et al. Influence of deprivation and rurality on patient-reported outcomes of men living with and beyond prostate cancer diagnosis in the UK: a population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol 2020;69:101830. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.canep.2020.101830 doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2020.101830. [DOI] [PubMed]
  253. Uemura H, Ye D, Kanesvaran R, Chiong E, Lojanapiwat B, Pu Y-S, et al. United in Fight against prOstate cancer (UFO) registry: first results from a large, multi-centre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study of advanced prostate cancer in Asia. BJU Int 2020;125(4):541–52. https://doi/org/10.1111/bju.14980 doi: 10.1111/bju.14980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  254. Venderbos LDF, Deschamps A, Dowling J, Carl E-G, Remmers S, van Poppel H, Roobol MJ. Europa Uomo Patient Reported Outcome Study (EUPROMS): descriptive statistics of a prostate cancer survey from patients for patients. Eur Urol Focus 2021;7(5):987–94. https://doi/org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  255. Wilding S, Downing A, Selby P, Cross W, Wright P, Watson EK, et al. Decision regret in men living with and beyond nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the United Kingdom: a population-based patient-reported outcome study. Psychooncology 2020;29(5):886–93. https://doi/org/10.1002/pon.5362 doi: 10.1002/pon.5362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  256. Yao HH, Crump RT, Charbonneau C, Khan A, Barton C, Brotherhood H, et al. Baseline patient reported outcomes data shows high prevalence of overactive bladder, sexual dysfunction, depression and anxiety in Canadian men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2020;9(5):2046–53. https://doi/org/10.21037/tau-20-689 doi: 10.21037/tau-20-689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  257. York Health Economics Consortium. Economic Impact Evaluation Case Study: PrecisionPointTM Transperineal Prostate Biopsies. York: York Health Economics Consortium; 2020.
  258. Pilon D, Behl AS, Ellis LA, Emond B, Lefebvre P, Dawson NA. Duration of treatment in prostate cancer patients treated with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2017;23(2):225–35. https://doi/org/10.18553/jmcp.2016.16233 doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2016.16233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

RESOURCES