Approaches for Initial Prostate Biopsy and Antibiotic Prophylaxis

Guillaume Ploussard; Vincenzo Scattoni; Gianluca Giannarini; J Stephen Jones

doi:10.1016/j.euf.2014.12.001

Approaches for Initial Prostate Biopsy and Antibiotic Prophylaxis

Eur Urol Focus. 2015 Sep;1(2):109-116. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2014.12.001. Epub 2015 May 30.

Authors

Guillaume Ploussard¹, Vincenzo Scattoni², Gianluca Giannarini³, J Stephen Jones⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, Saint-Jean Languedoc Hospital, Toulouse, France.
² Department of Urology, Scientific Institute Hospital San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute, Milan, Italy.
³ Department of Experimental and Clinical Medical Sciences, Urology Unit, University of Udine, Academic Medical Centre Hospital Udine, Udine, Italy.
⁴ Department of Urology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

PMID: 28723421
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2014.12.001

Abstract

Context: Debate on the optimal technique to use as an initial prostate biopsy (PB) strategy is continually evolving.

Objective: To review recent advances and current recommendations regarding initial PB and antibiotic prophylaxis.

Evidence acquisition: A nonsystematic review of the literature was performed up to October 2014 using the PubMed and Embase databases. Articles were selected with preference for the highest level of evidence in publications within the past 5 yr.

Evidence synthesis: The decision to perform PB is still based on an abnormal digital rectal examination or increased prostate0specific antigen (PSA) level without clear consensus about the absolute cutoff. Several biomarkers have been suggested to improve PSA-based PB decision-making and minimize overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The random 12-core transrectal (TR) ultrasound-guided approach remains the standard-of-care technique for PB. A >12-core scheme may be considered as an alternative in a single patient given his clinical features (large volume, low PSA levels). Transperineal biopsies may only be considered as an alternative to the TR route in special situations. Nevertheless, given the increase in antimicrobial resistance, the impact on the post-biopsy sepsis rate should be assessed in well-designed clinical trials. Imaging-guided targeted PB strategies, combined or not with random PBs, may represent the future of prostate cancer diagnosis by reducing the number of PBs and improving decision-making.

Conclusions: The 12-core TR scheme remains the standard of care for initial PB. The actual trend for PB strategy, with the aim of avoiding overdiagnosis of very low-risk cancers, could rapidly change our current indications and techniques through new biomarkers and imaging-guided targeted strategies. Nevertheless, the cost-benefit balance of these techniques should be closely assessed in the setting of initial PB strategy.

Patient summary: This review highlights current recommendations for prostate biopsy and possible advances in the near future.

Keywords: Biopsy; Core number; Detection rate; Imaging; Prostate cancer; Transperineal; Transrectal.

Publication types

Review