Transrectal Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer: Current Utilization, Integration with mpMRI, HIFU and Other Emerging Applications

References

• American Cancer Society. Key statistics for prostate cancer; 2021. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/about/key-statistics.html. Accessed August 29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Cancer.Net. Prostate cancer: statistics; 2021. Available from: https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/prostate-cancer/statistics. Accessed August 29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Catalona WJ. Prostate cancer screening. Med Clin North Am. 2018;102(2):199–214. doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2017.11.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabstald H, Elliott JL. Transrectal biopsy of the prostate. J Am Med Assoc. 1953;153(6):563–565. doi:10.1001/jama.1953.02940230035006k
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford CL, et al. Clinical application of transrectal ultrasonography and prostate specific antigen in the search for prostate cancer. J Urol. 1988;139(4):758–761. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42624-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee F, Torp-Pedersen ST, Siders DB. The role of transrectal ultrasound in the early detection of prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 1989;39(6):337–360. doi:10.3322/canjclin.39.6.337
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancer Research UK. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy; 2019. Available from: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/prostate-cancer/getting-diagnosed/tests/transrectal-ultrasound-guided-trus-biopsy. Accessed August 29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Li M, Wang Z, Li H, et al. Local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:40421. doi:10.1038/srep40421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cookson MS. Update on transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of the prostate. Mol Urol. 2000;4(3):93–7; discussion 99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Philip J, Ragavan N, Desouza J, Foster CS, Javle P. Effect of peripheral biopsies in maximising early prostate cancer detection in 8-, 10- or 12-core biopsy regimens. BJU Int. 2004;93(9):1218–1220. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04857.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamatiou K, Alevizos A, Karanasiou V, et al. Impact of additional sampling in the TRUS-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urol Int. 2007;78(4):313–317. doi:10.1159/000100834
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C, et al. An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2004;45(4):444–448;discussion 448–499. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2003.11.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guichard G, Larre S, Gallina A, et al. Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2007;52(2):430–435. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.062
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long JA, Daanen V, Moreau-Gaudry A, Troccaz J, Rambeaud JJ, Descotes JL. Prostate biopsies guided by three-dimensional real-time (4-D) transrectal ultrasonography on a phantom: comparative study versus two-dimensional transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies. Eur Urol. 2007;52(4):1097–1104. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benchikh El Fegoun A, El Atat R, Choudat L, et al. The learning curve of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: implications for training programs. Urology. 2013;81(1):12–15. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.084
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valerio M, Anele C, Bott SRJ, et al. The prevalence of clinically significant prostate cancer according to commonly used histological thresholds in men undergoing template prostate mapping biopsies. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1403–1408. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han M, Chang D, Kim C, et al. Geometric evaluation of systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2404–2409. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Lampotang S, Yu Y, et al. Attitude is everything: keep probe pitch neutral during side-fire prostate biopsy. A simulator study. BJU Int. 2021;128:615–624. doi:10.1111/bju.15445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, et al. An update of the American Urological Association white paper on the prevention and treatment of the more common complications related to prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2017;198(2):329–334. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2010;183(3):963–968. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross MD, Alshak MN, Shoag JE, et al. Healthcare costs of post-prostate biopsy sepsis. Urology. 2019;133:11–15. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.06.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JE, Shin SS, Kang TW, Kim JW, Heo SH, Jeong YY. Comparison of different rectal cleansing methods for reducing post-procedural infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Urol J. 2020;17(1):36–41. doi:10.22037/uj.v0i0.4583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes M, Littler R, Lyons M, et al. MP11-13 risk factor assessment for fluoroquinolone resistant E. coli (FRE) in bowel flora is not sufficiently discriminatory: the case for a pre-biopsy rectal swab in all patients. J Urol. 2017;197(4S):e141. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djavan B, Waldert M, Zlotta A, et al. Safety and morbidity of first and repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsies: results of a prospective European prostate cancer detection study. J Urol. 2001;166(3):856–860. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65851-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer KM. [Transperineal trial excision of prostate (prostate biopsy)]. Die transperineale Probeexzision der Vorsteherdruse (Prostatabiopsie). Medizinische. 1955;1955(33–34):1129–1131.
   Google Scholar
• Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):31. doi:10.1186/s12957-019-1573-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen PF, Zhu YC, Wei WR, et al. The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl. 2012;14(2):310–315. doi:10.1038/aja.2011.130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang GL, Kang CH, Lee WC, Chiang PH. Comparisons of cancer detection rate and complications between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy approaches - a single center preliminary study. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):101. doi:10.1186/s12894-019-0539-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2008;11(2):134–138. doi:10.1038/sj.pcan.4500985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerruto MA, Vianello F, D’Elia C, Artibani W, Novella G. 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):284–287. doi:10.4081/aiua.2014.4.284
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guo LH, Wu R, Xu HX, et al. Comparison between ultrasound guided transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16089. doi:10.1038/srep16089
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan T, Baker E, McCray G, Reeves F, Houlihan K, Johns-Putra L. Detection of clinically significant cancer in the anterior prostate by transperineal biopsy. BJU Int. 2020;126(Suppl 1):33–37. doi:10.1111/bju.15124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: experience with 1287 patients. Prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1121–1126. doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000000156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdelsayed GA, Danial T, Kaswick JA, Finley DS. Tumors of the anterior prostate: implications for diagnosis and treatment. Urology. 2015;85(6):1224–1228. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mygatt J, Sesterhenn I, Rosner I, et al. Anterior tumors of the prostate: clinicopathological features and outcomes. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014;17(1):75–80. doi:10.1038/pcan.2013.54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry B, Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, et al. Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study. BJU Int. 2020;126(1):97–103. doi:10.1111/bju.15039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skouteris VM, Crawford ED, Mouraviev V, et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided versus transperineal mapping prostate biopsy: complication comparison. Rev Urol. 2018;20(1):19–25. doi:10.3909/riu0785
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Symons JL, Huo A, Yuen CL, et al. Outcomes of transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy in 409 patients. BJU Int. 2013;112(5):585–593. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11657.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaufler C, Daigle R, Singhaviranon S, Gjertson CK, Albertsen PC, Ristau BT. How many cores are enough? Optimizing the transperineal prostate biopsy template. Urol Oncol. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.11.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Food and Drug Administration. Approval of the PrecisionPoint transperineal access system. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf16/K160414.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman ME, Meyer AR, Carter HB, Allaf ME, Gorin MA. In-office transperineal prostate biopsy using biplanar ultrasound guidance: a step-by-step guide. Urology. 2019;133:247. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetterauer C, Shahin O, Federer-Gsponer JR, et al. Feasibility of freehand MRI/US cognitive fusion transperineal biopsy of the prostate in local anaesthesia as in-office procedure-experience with 400 patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23(3):429–434. doi:10.1038/s41391-019-0201-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer AR, Joice GA, Schwen ZR, Partin AW, Allaf ME, Gorin MA. Initial experience performing in-office ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia using the precisionpoint transperineal access system. Urology. 2018;115:8–13. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.01.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altok M, Kim B, Patel BB, 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):524–532. doi:10.1038/s41391-018-0056-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, et al. Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology. 2008;71(2):191–195. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.09.029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Association of Urology. Prostate cancer. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/. Accessed August 29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• American Urological Associaiton. Optimal techniques of prostate biopsy and specimen handling. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/guidelines/prostate-biopsy-and-specimen-handling. Accessed August 29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Martins T, Mussi TC, Baroni RH. Prostate volume measurement by multiparametric magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound: comparison with surgical specimen weight. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2020;18:eAO4662. doi:10.31744/einstein_journal/2020AO4662
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roehrborn CG, Girman CJ, Rhodes T, et al. Correlation between prostate size estimated by digital rectal examination and measured by transrectal ultrasound. Urology. 1997;49(4):548–557. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00031-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickel JC. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: does prostate size matter? Rev Urol. 2003;5(Suppl 4):S12–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christie DRH, Sharpley CF. How accurately can prostate gland imaging measure the prostate gland volume? Results of a systematic review. Prostate Cancer. 2019;2019:6932572. doi:10.1155/2019/6932572
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JS, Chung BH. Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in the estimation of prostate volume as compared with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol Int. 2007;78(4):323–327. doi:10.1159/000100836
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner LB, McVary KT, Barry MJ, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA GUIDELINE PART I-initial work-up and medical management. J Urol. 2021;206(4):806–817. doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000002183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macura KJ. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: current status in prostate cancer detection, localization, and staging. Semin Roentgenol. 2008;43(4):303–313. doi:10.1053/j.ro.2008.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D, Carroll P, Coakley F. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future. Curr Opin Urol. 2008;18(1):71–77. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e3282f19d01
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs MA, Ouwerkerk R, Petrowski K, Macura KJ. Diffusion-weighted imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and spectroscopy in prostate cancer. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;19(6):261–272. doi:10.1097/RMR.0b013e3181aa6b50
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallis CJD, Haider MA, Nam RK. Role of mpMRI of the prostate in screening for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(3):464–471. doi:10.21037/tau.2017.04.31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• An JY, Sidana A, Holzman SA, et al. Ruling out clinically significant prostate cancer with negative multi-parametric MRI. Int Urol Nephrol. 2018;50(1):7–12. doi:10.1007/s11255-017-1715-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S, et al. Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020;203(4):706–712. doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000000617
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Association of Urology. Prostate Cancer. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/?type=summary-of-changes. Accessed August 29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Oishi M, Shin T, Ohe C, et al. Which patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging can safely avoid biopsy for prostate cancer? J Urol. 2019;201(2):268–276. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.08.046
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):250–266. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryoo H, Kang MY, Sung HH, et al. Detection of prostate cancer using prostate imaging reporting and data system score and prostate-specific antigen density in biopsy-naive and prior biopsy-negative patients. Prostate Int. 2020;8(3):125–129. doi:10.1016/j.prnil.2020.03.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinnaird A, Sharma V, Chuang R, et al. Risk of prostate cancer after a negative magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy. J Urol. 2020;204(6):1180–1186. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Urological Associaiton. Prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsy. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/guidelines/prostate-mri-and-mri-targeted-biopsy. Accessed August 29, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Wang NN, Teslovich NC, Fan RE, et al. Applying the PRECISION approach in biopsy naive and previously negative prostate biopsy patients. Urol Oncol. 2019;37(8):530e19–530 e24. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, et al. In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int. 2015;115(4):562–570. doi:10.1111/bju.12938
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sklinda K, Mruk B, Walecki J. Active surveillance of prostate cancer using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a review of the current role and future perspectives. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e920252. doi:10.12659/msm.920252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):713–719. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol. 2013;189(1):86–91. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, et al. Comparison of systematic transrectal biopsy to transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;116(6):873–879. doi:10.1111/bju.13023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujii S, Hayashi T, Honda Y, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography fusion targeted prostate biopsy finds more significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive Japanese men compared with the standard biopsy. Int J Urol. 2020;27(2):140–146. doi:10.1111/iju.14149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Luca S, Fiori C, Bollito E, et al. Risk of Gleason Score 3+4=7 prostate cancer upgrading at radical prostatectomy is significantly reduced by targeted versus standard biopsy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020;72(3):360–368. doi:10.23736/s0393-2249.19.03367-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton Diaz A, Hoang AN, Turkbey B, et al. Can magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates? J Urol. 2013;190(6):2020–2025. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borghesi M, Bianchi L, Barbaresi U, et al. Diagnostic performance of MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsies vs. systematic prostate biopsies in biopsy-naïve, previous negative biopsy patients and men undergoing active surveillance. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021;73(3):357–366. doi:10.23736/s2724-6051.20.03758-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin A, Gianduzzo T, Yaxley J, et al. Use of a trizonal schema to assess targeting accuracy in prostatic fusion biopsy. BJU Int. 2020;126(Suppl 1):6–11. doi:10.1111/bju.14974
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim S, Jun C, Chang D, Petrisor D, Han M, Stoianovici D. Robotic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019;66(9):2527–2537. doi:10.1109/tbme.2019.2891240
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetterauer C, Trotsenko P, Matthias MO, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical implications of robotic assisted MRI-US fusion guided target saturation biopsy of the prostate. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):20250. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-99854-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilanova JC, Pérez de Tudela A, Puig J, et al. Robotic-assisted transrectal MRI-guided biopsy. Technical feasibility and role in the current diagnosis of prostate cancer: an initial single-center experience. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45(12):4150–4159. doi:10.1007/s00261-020-02665-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell’Oglio P, Stabile A, Soligo M, et al. There is no way to avoid systematic prostate biopsies in addition to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(1):112–118. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sathianathen NJ, Konety BR, Soubra A, et al. Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR-targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21(4):573–578. doi:10.1038/s41391-018-0065-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priester A, Natarajan S, Khoshnoodi P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging underestimation of prostate cancer geometry: use of patient specific molds to correlate images with whole mount pathology. J Urol. 2017;197(2):320–326. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.084
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767–1777. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4(4):Cd012663. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klotz L, Chin J, Black PC, et al. Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasonography biopsy for biopsy-naive men at risk for prostate cancer: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(4):534–542. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):570–578. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313(4):390–397. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17942
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(1):100–109. doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30569-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(10):917–928. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oderda M, Marra G, Albisinni S, et al. Elastic fusion biopsy versus systematic biopsy for prostate cancer detection: results of a multicentric study on 1119 patients. Evaluacion de la biopsia de fusion elastica vs. biopsia sistematica para la deteccion del cancer de prostata: resultados de un estudio multicentrico en 1.119 pacientes. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2019;43(8):431–438. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2019.01.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, et al. Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naive: the Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) study. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(9):811–818. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fourcade A, Payrard C, Tissot V, et al. The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2018;52(3):174–179. doi:10.1080/21681805.2018.1438509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mannaerts CK, Kajtazovic A, Lodeizen OAP, et al. The added value of systematic biopsy in men with suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2019;37(5):298e1–298 e9. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M, et al. The key combined value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and concomitant systematic biopsies for the prediction of adverse pathological features in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2020;77(6):733–741. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):353–365. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg H, Ahmad AE, Chandrasekar T, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound informed prostate biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy naive men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2020;203(6):1085–1093. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Exact Imaging. The practical Solution. Available from: https://www.exactimaging.com. Accessed August 30, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Ghai S, Eure G, Fradet V, et al. Assessing cancer risk on novel 29 MHz micro-ultrasound images of the prostate: creation of the micro-ultrasound protocol for prostate risk identification. J Urol. 2016;196(2):562–569. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Wang R, Wu Y, et al. Micro-ultrasound imaging for accuracy of diagnosis in clinically significant prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1368. doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.01368
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurence Klotz CM. Can high resolution micro-ultrasound replace MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer? Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(2):419–423. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klotz L, Lughezzani G, Maffei D, et al. Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: a multicenter, prospective analysis. Can Urol Assoc J. 2021;15(1):E11–E16. doi:10.5489/cuaj.6712
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lughezzani G, Maffei D, Saita A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of microultrasound in patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer at magnetic resonance imaging: a single-institutional prospective study. Eur Urol Focus. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2020.09.013
   Google Scholar
• Eure G, Fanney D, Lin J, Wodlinger B, Ghai S. Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: a feasibility study. Can Urol Assoc J. 2019;13(3):E70–E77. doi:10.5489/cuaj.5361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiemer L, Hollenbach M, Heckmann R, et al. Evolution of targeted prostate biopsy by adding micro-ultrasound to the magnetic resonance imaging pathway. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;7:1292–1299. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.022
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rohrbach D, Wodlinger B, Wen J, Mamou J, Feleppa E. High-frequency quantitative ultrasound for imaging prostate cancer using a novel micro-ultrasound scanner. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44(7):1341–1354. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.02.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groeben C, Wirth MP. Prostate cancer: basics on clinical appearance, diagnostics and treatment. Prostatakarzinom Grundzuge von Klinik, Diagnostik und Therapie. Med Monatsschr Pharm. 2017;40(5):192–201.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Son MJ, Peters M, Reddy D, et al. Conventional radical versus focal treatment for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score weighted comparison of 6-year tumour control. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24:1120–1128. doi:10.1038/s41391-021-00369-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tewari A, Raman JD, Chang P, Rao S, Divine G, Menon M. Long-term survival probability in men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated either conservatively or with definitive treatment (radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy). Urology. 2006;68(6):1268–1274. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.08.1059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Penson DF, Barrows G, Fine J. 13-year outcomes following treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer in a population based cohort. J Urol. 2007;177(3):932–936. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.051
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merglen A, Schmidlin F, Fioretta G, et al. Short- and long-term mortality with localized prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(18):1944–1950. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.18.1944
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vernooij RW, Lancee M, Cleves A, Dahm P, Bangma CH, Aben KK. Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;6:CD006590. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006590.pub3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redondo C, Rozet F, Velilla G, Sánchez-Salas R, Cathelineau X. [Complications of radical prostatectomy]. Complicaciones de la prostatectomía radical. Arch Esp Urol. 2017;70(9):766–776.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirza M, Griebling TL, Kazer MW. Erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence after prostate cancer treatment. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2011;27(4):278–289. doi:10.1016/j.soncn.2011.07.006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stabile A, Moschini M, Montorsi F, Cathelineau X, Sanchez-Salas R. Focal therapy for prostate cancer - index lesion treatment vs. hemiablation. A matter of definition. Int Braz J Urol. 2019;45(5):873–876. doi:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2019.05.02
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourinho-Barbosa RR, de la Rosette J, Sanchez-Salas R. Prostate cancer multifocality, the index lesion, and the microenvironment. Curr Opin Urol. 2018;28(6):499–505. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000537
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Rosette J, Ahmed H, Barentsz J, et al. Focal therapy in prostate cancer-report from a consensus panel. J Endourol. 2010;24(5):775–780. doi:10.1089/end.2009.0596
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barkin J. High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Can J Urol. 2011;18(2):5634–5643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillaumier S, Peters M, Arya M, et al. A multicentre study of 5-year outcomes following focal therapy in treating clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;74(4):422–429. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuru TH, van Essen J, Pfister D, Porres D. Role of focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound in the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. Oncol Res Treat. 2015;38(12):634–638. doi:10.1159/000441600
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantica G, Chierigo F, Suardi N, et al. Minimally invasive strategies for the treatment of prostate cancer recurrence after radiation therapy: a systematic review. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020;72(5):563–578. doi:10.23736/s0393-2249.20.03783-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rischmann P, Gelet A, Riche B, et al. Focal high intensity focused ultrasound of unilateral localized prostate cancer: a prospective multicentric hemiablation study of 111 patients. Eur Urol. 2017;71(2):267–273. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Checcucci E, De Luca S, Piramide F, et al. The real-time intraoperative guidance of the new HIFU Focal-One(®) platform allows to minimize the perioperative adverse events in salvage setting. J Ultrasound. 2021. doi:10.1007/s40477-021-00594-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakavicius A, Sanchez-Salas R, Muttin F, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of focal therapy complications in prostate cancer: a standardized methodology. J Endourol. 2019;33(7):509–515. doi:10.1089/end.2018.0809
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dellabella M, Branchi A, Di Rosa M, et al. Oncological and functional outcome after partial prostate HIFU ablation with Focal-One((R)): a prospective single-center study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24:1189–1197. doi:10.1038/s41391-021-00390-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lebastchi AH, George AK, Polascik TJ, et al. Standardized nomenclature and surveillance methodologies after focal therapy and partial gland ablation for localized prostate cancer: an international multidisciplinary consensus. Eur Urol. 2020;78(3):371–378. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumunk D, Schostak M. [Treatment of localized prostate cancer with high-intensity focused ultrasound]. Therapie des lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms mit hochintensivem fokussierten Ultraschall. Urologe A. 2015;54(2):183–190. doi:10.1007/s00120-014-3666-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ecke TH, Gerullis H, Heuck CJ, et al. Does a new ultrasound probe change the complication rates of transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsies of the prostate? Anticancer Res. 2010;30(7):3071–3076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chowdhury R, Abbas A, Idriz S, Hoy A, Rutherford EE, Smart JM. Should warfarin or aspirin be stopped prior to prostate biopsy? An analysis of bleeding complications related to increasing sample number regimes. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(12):e64–70. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2012.08.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kariotis I, Philippou P, Volanis D, Serafetinides E, Delakas D. Safety of ultrasound-guided transrectal extended prostate biopsy in patients receiving low-dose aspirin. Int Braz J Urol. 2010;36(3):308–316. doi:10.1590/s1677-55382010000300007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raheem OA, Casey RG, Galvin DJ, et al. Discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: a single-center experience. Korean J Urol. 2012;53(4):234–239. doi:10.4111/kju.2012.53.4.234
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Joshi R. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic biopsy and its complications: a descriptive cross-sectional study. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2020;58(221):44–47. doi:10.31729/jnma.4820
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):1142–1146. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.02.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winoker JS, Wajswol E, Falagario U, et al. Transperineal versus transrectal targeted biopsy with use of electromagnetically-tracked MR/US fusion guidance platform for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urology. 2020;146:278–286. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.07.072
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo KL, Chui KL, Leung CH, et al. Outcomes of transperineal and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Hong Kong Med J. 2019;25(3):209–215. doi:10.12809/hkmj187599
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Franco CA, Jallous H, Porru D, et al. A retrospective comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2017;89(1):55–59. doi:10.4081/aiua.2017.1.55
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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):726–733. doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000001083
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claros OR, Tourinho-Barbosa RR, Fregeville A, et al. Comparison of initial experience with transrectal magnetic resonance imaging cognitive guided micro-ultrasound biopsies versus established transperineal robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsies for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020;203(5):918–925. doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000000692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornud F, Lefevre A, Flam T, et al. MRI-directed high-frequency (29MhZ) TRUS-guided biopsies: initial results of a single-center study. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(9):4838–4846. doi:10.1007/s00330-020-06882-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abouassaly R, Klein EA, El-Shefai A, Stephenson A. Impact of using 29 MHz high-resolution micro-ultrasound in real-time targeting of transrectal prostate biopsies: initial experience. World J Urol. 2020;38(5):1201–1206. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02863-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lughezzani G, Saita A, Lazzeri M, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2(3):329–332. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chessa F, Schiavina R, Ercolino A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Novel 29 MHz micro-ultrasound “ExactVuTM” for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a prospective single institutional study. A step forward in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021;93(2):132–138. doi:10.4081/aiua.2021.2.132
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Avolio PP, Lughezzani G, Paciotti M, et al. The use of 29 MHz transrectal micro-ultrasound to stratify the prostate cancer risk in patients with PI-RADS III lesions at multiparametric MRI: a single institutional analysis. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:832.e1–832.e7. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.05.030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber PM, Afzal N, Arya M, et al. Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions. World J Urol. 2021;39(4):1115–1119. doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03297-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoji S, Hiraiwa S, Uemura K, et al. Focal therapy with high-intensity focused ultrasound for the localized prostate cancer for Asian based on the localization with MRI-TRUS fusion image-guided transperineal biopsy and 12-cores transperineal systematic biopsy: prospective analysis of oncological and functional outcomes. Int J Clin Oncol. 2020;25(10):1844–1853. doi:10.1007/s10147-020-01723-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radiology Assistant. Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System. 2019. Version 2.1. PIRADS. Available from: https://radiologyassistant.nl/abdomen/prostate/prostate-cancer-pi-rads-v2. Accessed March 19, 2022.
   Google Scholar