Cancer UrologyCancer UrologyОнкоурология1726-97761996-1812Publishing House ABV Press140910.17650/1726-9776-2021-17-2-157-167REVIEWSОБЗОРЫThe role of targeted biopsy methods in the prostate cancer diagnosisРоль прицельных методов биопсии в диагностике рака предстательной железыhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1795-1913PetovV. S.ПетовВ. С.
Russian Federation

Vladislav Sergeevich Petov.

Build. 1, 2 Bol'shaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow 119435.

Петов Владислав Сергеевич - аспирант.

119435 Москва, ул. Большая Пироговская, 2, стр. 1.

SPIN-код: 5153-9884

pettow@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3580-5111SapelkoA. V.СапелкоА. В.
Russian Federation

Build. 1, 2 Bol'shaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow 119435.

119435 Москва, ул. Большая Пироговская, 2, стр. 1.

DanilovS. P.ДаниловС. П.
Russian Federation

Build. 1, 2 Bol'shaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow 119435.

119435 Москва, ул. Большая Пироговская, 2, стр. 1.

ChernovYa. N.ЧерновЯ. Н.
Russian Federation

Build. 1, 2 Bol'shaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow 119435.

119435 Москва, ул. Большая Пироговская, 2, стр. 1.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4369-173XTaratkinM. S.ТараткинМ. С.
Russian Federation

Build. 1, 2 Bol'shaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow 119435.

119435 Москва, ул. Большая Пироговская, 2, стр. 1.

AmosovA. V.АмосовА. В.
Russian Federation

Build. 1, 2 Bol'shaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow 119435.

119435 Москва, ул. Большая Пироговская, 2, стр. 1.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7169-2209EnikeevD. V.ЕникеевД. В.
Russian Federation

Build. 1, 2 Bol'shaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow 119435.

119435 Москва, ул. Большая Пироговская, 2, стр. 1.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2571-8671KrupinovG. E.КрупиновГ. Е.
Russian Federation

Build. 1, 2 Bol'shaya Pirogovskaya St., Moscow 119435.

119435 Москва, ул. Большая Пироговская, 2, стр. 1.

Institute of Urology and Human Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Ministry of Health of RussiaИнститут урологии и репродуктивного здоровья человека, Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова (Сеченовский Университет) Минздрава России250720211721571670902202129042021https://oncourology.abvpress.ru/oncur/article/view/1409

The current prostate cancer screening program results in unnecessary biopsies in a quarter of patients, overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ISUP 1) and overtreatment. Intoducing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging into routine practice before biopsy allows to decrease the number of biopsies, thereby reducing the burden on clinicians and increasing the likelihood of detecting clinically significant forms of prostate cancer (ISUP >2).  The objective of this literature review is to compare targeted biopsy techniques and to determine their current role in the prostate cancer diagnosis.

    

Современная программа скрининга рака предстательной железы приводит к выполнению ненужных биопсий у четверти пациентов, гипердиагностике клинически незначимого рака предстательной железы (ISUP 1) и избыточному лечению. Активное внедрение мультипараметрической магнитно-резонансной томографии в повседневную практику перед проведением биопсии позволяет (без ущерба для диагностики) уменьшать количество выполняемых биопсий, тем самым снижать нагрузку на врачей и повышать вероятность выявления клинически значимых форм рака предстательной железы (ISUP ≥2).  Цель обзора - сравнение методов прицельной биопсии и определение их текущей роли в диагностике рака предстательной железы.

 

prostate cancermultiparametric magnetic resonance imagingtargeted biopsyprostate biopsyрак предстательной железымультипараметрическая магнитно-резонансная томографияприцельная биопсиябиопсия предстательной железыState of oncological care in Russia in 2019. Eds.: A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinskiy, G.V. Petrova. Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena - filial FGBU “NMITS radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2020. 236 p. (In Russ.).Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2018 году. Под ред. А.Д. Каприна, В.В. Старинского, Г.В. Петровой. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена - филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2019. 236 с.Prostate cancer. Clinical guidelines. Association of Russian Oncologists. Moscow, 2020. 140 p. (In Russ.).Рак предстательной железы. Клинические рекомендации. Ассоциация онкологов России. М., 2020. 140 с.Catalona W.J., Richie J.P., Ahmann F.R. et al. Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 2017;197(2S):S200-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.073.Roddam A.W., Duffy M.J., Hamdy F.C. et al. Use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoforms for the detection of prostate cancer in men with a PSA level of 2-10 ng/ml: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2005;48(3):386-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.015.Thompson I.M., Pauler D.K., Goodman P.J. et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or = 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004;350(22):2239-46. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa031918.Pepe P., Garufi A., Priolo G., Pennisi M. Can 3-Tesla pelvic phased-array multiparametric MRI avoid unnecessary repeat prostate biopsy in patients with PSA <10 ng/mL? Clin Genitourin Cancer 2015;13(1):e27-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2014.06.013.Ahmed H.U., El-Shater Bosaily A., Brown L.C. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389(10071):815-22. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.Mottet N., Bellmunt J., Briers E. et al. Members of the EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Edn. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. Arnhem, Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office.Fukui M., Tanaka M., Kadono M. et al. Serum prostate-specific antigen levels in men with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2008;31(5):930-1. DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1962.Chang S.L., Harshman L.C., Presti J.C. Jr. Impact of common medications on serum total prostate-specific antigen levels: analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(25):3951-7. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.9406.Wright J.L., Lin D.W., Stanford J.L. The effect of demographic and clinical factors on the relationship between BMI and PSA levels. Prostate 2011;71(15):1631-7. DOI: 10.1002/pros.21380.Naji L., Randhawa H., Sohani Z. et al. Digital rectal examination for prostate cancer screening in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med 2018;16(2):149-54. DOI: 10.1370/afm.2205.Aigner F., Mitterberger M., Rehder P. et al. Status of transrectal ultrasound imaging of the prostate. J Endourol 2010;24(5):685-91. DOI: 10.1089/end.2009.0640.Smeenge M., Barentsz J., Cosgrove D. et al. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel. BJU Int 2012;110(7):942-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11072.x.Roobol M.J., Steyerberg E.W., Kranse R. et al. A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen-driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57(1):79-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.08.025.Draisma G., Boer R., Otto S.J. et al. Lead times and over detection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(12):868-78. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/95.12.868.Pepe P., Garufi A., Priolo G., Pennisi M. Transperineal versus transrectal MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy: detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017;15(1):e33-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2016.07.007.Sergeeva N.S., Skachkova T.E., Marshutina N.V. et al. Clinical significance of PSA-associated tests in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Onkologiya. Zhurnal im. P.A. Gertsena = P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology 2018;7(1):55-67. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/onkolog20187155-67.Сергеева Н.С., Скачкова Т.Е., Маршутина Н.В. и др. Клиническая значимость ПСА-ассоциированных тестов в диагностике и стадировании рака предстательной железы. Онкология. Журнал им. П.А. Герцена 2018;7(1):55-67. DOI: 10.17116/onkolog20187155-67.Sokoll L.J., Chan D.W., Mikolajczyk S.D. et al. Proenzyme PSA for the early detection of prostate cancer in the 2.5-4.0 ng/ml total PSA range: preliminary analysis. Urology 2003;61(2):274-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02398-1.Khan M.A., Partin A.W., Rittenhouse H.G. et al. Evaluation of proprostate specific antigen for early detection of prostate cancer in men with a total prostate specific antigen range of 4.0 to 10.0 ng/ml. J Urol 2003;170(3):723-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000086940.10392.93.Catalona W.J., Southwick P.C., Slawin K.M. et al. Comparison of percent free PSA, PSA density, and age-specific PSA cutoffs for prostate cancer detection and staging. Urology 2000;56(2):255-60. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00637-3.Martínez Jabaloyas J.M., García Morata F., Villamón Fort R. et al. Valor de la densidad del antígeno prostático específico y de la densidad del antígeno prostático específico de la zona transicional en el diagnóstico del cáncer de próstata. Actas Urol Esp 2003;27(6):442–9. [Martínez Jabaloyas J.M., García Morata F., Villamón Fort R. et al. Value of prostate-specific antigen density and transitional-zone prostate-specific antigen density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Actas Urol Esp 2003;27(6):442–9. (In Spanish)]. DOI: 10.1016/s0210-4806(03)72951-9.Nordstrom T., Akre O., Aly M. et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018;21(1):57-63. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-017-0024-7.Roobol M.J., Verbeek J.F.M., van der Kwast T. et al. Improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for Initial Prostate Biopsy by Incorporating the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology Gleason Grading and Cribriform growth. Eur Urol 2017;72(1):45-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.033.Lazzeri M., Haese A., de la Taille A. et al. Serum isoform [-2]proPSA derivatives significantly improve prediction of prostate cancer at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2-10 ng/ml: a multicentric European study. Eur Urol 2013;63(6):986-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.01.011.Konety B., Zappala S.M., Parekh D.J. et al. The 4Kscore® test reduces prostate biopsy rates in community and academic urology practices. Rev Urol 2015;17(4):231-40.Kuru T.H., Futterer J.J., Schiffmann J. et al. Transrectal ultrasound (US), contrast-enhanced US, real-time elastography, histo-scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and MRI-US fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus 2015;1(2):117-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2015.06.003.Cornelis F., Rigou G., Le Bras Y. et al. Real-time contrast-enhanced transrectal US-guided prostate biopsy: diagnostic accuracy in men with previously negative biopsy results and positive MR imaging findings. Radiology 2013;269(1):159-66. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122393.Boehm K., Budaus L., Tennstedt P. et al. Prediction of Significant prostate cancer at prostate biopsy and per core detection rate of targeted and systematic biopsies using real-time shear wave elastography. Urol Int 2015;95(2):189-96. DOI: 10.1159/000431233.Salomon G., Drews N., Autier P. et al. Incremental detection rate of prostate cancer by real-time elastography targeted biopsies in combination with a conventional 10-core biopsy in 1024 consecutive patients. BJU Int 2014;113(4):548-53. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12517.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.Abouassaly R., Klein E.A., 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):1201-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02863-y.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:S2405-4569(20)30188-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.022.Barrett T., Rajesh A., Rosenkrantz A.B. et al. PI-RADS version 2.1: one small step for prostate MRI. Clin Radiol 2019;74(11):841-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.05.019.Korobkin A.S., Shariya M.A., Voskanyan G.A., Vinarov A.Z. Multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Andrologiya i genital'naya khirurgiya = Andrology and Genital Surgery 2015;16(1):53-61. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17650/2070-97812015-1-53-61.Коробкин А.С., Шария М.А., Восканян Г.А., Винаров А.З. Мультипараметрическая магнитнорезонансная томография в диагностике рака предстательной железы. Андрология и генитальная хирургия 2015;16(1):53-61. DOI: 10.17650/2070-97812015-1-53-61.Willis S.R., Ahmed H.U., Moore C.M. et al. Multiparametric MRI followed by targeted prostate biopsy for men with suspected prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis. BMJ Open 2014;4(6):e004895. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004895.Olleik G., Kassouf W., Aprikian A. et al. Evaluation of new tests and interventions for prostate cancer management: a systematic review. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018;16(11):1340-51. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7055.Pokorny M.R., de Rooij M., Duncan E. et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 2014;66(1):22-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002.Kasivisvanathan V., Rannikko A.S., Borghi M. et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378(19):1767-77. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.Mertan F.V., Berman R., Szajek K. et al. Evaluating the role of mpMRI in prostate cancer assessment. Expert Rev Med Devices 2016;13(2):129-41. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.2016.1134311.Meng X., Rosenkrantz A.B., Mendhiratta N. et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusiontargeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol 2016;69(3):512-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.005.de Rooij M., Hamoen E.H., Futterer J.J. et al. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202(2):343-51. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.11046.Drost F.H., Osses D.F., 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.Bratan F., Niaf E., Melodelima C. et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 2013;23(7):2019-29. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2795-0.Monni F., Fontanella P., Grasso A. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management: a systematic review. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2017;69(6):567-78. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02819-3.Mohler J.L., Antonarakis E.S., Armstrong A.J. et al. Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019;17(5):479-505. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0023.Wegelin O., Exterkate L., van der Leest M. et al. The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2019;75(4):582-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040.Panebianco V., Barchetti F., Manenti G. et al. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy: technical features and preliminary results. Radiol Med 2015;120(6):571-8. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-014-0490-0.Beyersdorff D., Winkel A., Hamm B. et al. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology 2005;234(2):576-81. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2342031887.Roethke M., Anastasiadis A.G., Lichy M. et al. MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 2012;30(2):213-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2.Sertdemir M., Schoenberg S.O., Sourbron S. et al. Interscanner comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer: 1.5 versus 3 T MRI. Invest Radiol 2013;48(2):92-7. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31827bbcbe.Quentin M., Arsov C., Ullrich T. et al. Comparison of analgesic techniques in MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy. Eur Radiol 2019;29(12):6965-70. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06301-w.Schiavina R., Vagnoni V., D'Agostino D. et al. “In-bore” MRI-guided prostate biopsy using an endorectal nonmagnetic device: a prospective study of 70 consecutive patients. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017;15(3):417-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2017.01.013.Hoeks C.M., Schouten M.G., Bomers J.G. et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):902-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.047.Pokorny M., Kua B., Esler R. et al. MRI-guided in-bore biopsy for prostate cancer: what does the evidence say? A case series of 554 patients and a review of the current literature. World J Urol 2019;37(7):1263-79. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2497-y.Friedl A., Schneeweiss J., Sevcenco S. et al. In-bore 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy in a repeat biopsy population: diagnostic performance, complications, and learning curve. Urology 2018;114:139-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.12.032.Streicher J., Meyerson B.L., Karivedu V., Sidana A. A review of optimal prostate biopsy: indications and techniques. Ther Adv Urol 2019;11: 1756287219870074. DOI: 10.1177/1756287219870074.Venderink W., de Rooij M., Sedelaar J.P.M. et al. Elastic versus rigid image registration in magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2018;4(2):219-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.003.Mai Z., Zhou Z., Yan W. et al. The transverse and vertical distribution of prostate cancer in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BMC Cancer 2018;18(1):1205. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-5124-9.Tewes S., Peters I., Tiemeyer A. et al. Evaluation of MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy using transrectal and transperineal approaches. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:2176471. DOI: 10.1155/2017/2176471.Grummet J.P., Weerakoon M., Huang S. et al. Sepsis and “superbugs”: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int 2014;114(3):384-8. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12536.Bass E.J., Donaldson I.A., Freeman A. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017;20(3):311-7. DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2017.13.Cicione A., De Nunzio C., Manno S. et al. An update on prostate biopsy in the era of magnetic resonance imaging. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2018;70(3):264-74. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03048-5.Stabile A., Dell'Oglio P., Gandaglia G. et al. Not all multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.002.Kasabwala K., Patel N., Cricco-Lizza E. et al. The learning curve for magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 2019;2(2):135-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.07.005.Rosenkrantz A.B., Verma S., Choyke P. et al. mProstate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol 2016;196(6):1613-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079.Van der Leest M., Cornel E., кгаё1 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):570-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023.Marra G., Marquis A., Tappero S. et al. Transperineal free-hand mpMRI fusion-targeted biopsies under local anesthesia: technique and feasibility from a single-center prospective study. Urology 2020;140:122-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.078.Borghesi M., Ahmed H., Nam R. et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2017;71(3):353-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004.Yaxley A.J., Yaxley J.W., Thangasamy I.A. et al. Comparison between target magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in-gantry and cognitively directed transperineal or transrectal-guided prostate biopsies for Prostate ImagingReporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 MRI lesions. BJU Int 2017;120(Suppl 3): 43-50. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13971.Xu G., Xiang L., Wu J. et al. The accuracy of prostate lesion localization in cognitive fusion. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2020;74(3):223-9. DOI: 10.3233/CH-180423.Oderda M., Faletti R., Battisti G. et al. Prostate cancer detection rate with koelis fusion biopsies versus cognitive biopsies: a comparative study. Urol Int 2016;97(2): 230-7. DOI: 10.1159/000445524.Bhat Z., Bhat A., Mahmalji W. Consecutive transperineal prostatic template biopsies employing cognitive and systematic approach: a single center study. Aging Male 2020:23(5):953-7. DOI: 10.1080/13685538.2019.1641796.Murphy I.G., NiMhurchu E., Gibney R.G., McMahon C.J. MRI-directed cognitive fusion-guided biopsy of the anterior prostate tumors. Diagn Interv Radiol 2017;23(2):87-93. DOI: 10.5152/dir.2016.15445.Galosi A.B., Maselli G., Sbrollini G. et al. Cognitive zonal fusion biopsy of the prostate: Original technique between target and saturation. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2016;88(4):292-5. DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2016.4.292.Patel M.I., Muter S., Vladica P., Gillatt D. Robotic-assisted magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion results in higher significant cancer detection compared to cognitive prostate targeting in biopsy naive men. Transl Androl Urol 2020;9(2):601-8. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2020.01.33.Wegelin O., van Melick H.H.E., Hooft L. et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 2017;71(4):517-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041.Simmons L.A.M., Kanthabalan A., Arya M. et al. Accuracy of transperineal targeted prostate biopsies, visual estimation and image fusion in men needing repeat biopsy in the PICTURE trial. J Urol 2018;200(6):1227-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.001.Elkhoury F.F., Felker E.R., 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):811-8. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734.Watts K.L., Frechette L., Muller B. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cognitive vs. image-guided fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2020;38(9):734.e19-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.03.020.Costa D.N., Goldberg K., Leon A.D. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided in-bore and magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsies: an adjusted comparison of clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate. Eur Urol Oncol 2019;2(4):397-404. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.08.022.Kaufmann S., Russo G.I., Bamberg F. et al. Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive-, robotic- or in-bore MRI target biopsy. World J Urol 2018;36(5):761-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2189-7.Rouviere 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):100-9. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2.Baccaglini W., Glina F.P.A., Pazeto C.L. et al. mpMRI-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Curr Opin Urol 2020;30(5):711-9. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000801.Goldberg H., Ahmad A.E., 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):1085-93. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000595.Scattoni V., Zlotta A., Montironi R. et al. Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 2007;52(5):1309-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.006.Pepe P., Garufi A., Priolo G.D. et al. Is it time to perform only magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores? Our experience with 1,032 men who underwent prostate biopsy. J Urol 2018;200(4):774-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.061.Sadchenko A.V., Govorov A.V., Pushkar' D.Yu. et al. Perineal saturation biopsy of the prostate. Urologiya = Urologiia 2014;(1):33-6. (In Russ.).Садченко А.В., Говоров А.В., Пушкарь Д.Ю. и др. Промежностная сатурационная биопсия простаты. Урология 2014;(1):33-6.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. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.02.019.Kroenig M., Schaal K., Benndorf M. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of robot-guided, software based transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy of the prostate in a high risk population of previously biopsy negative men. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:2384894. DOI: 10.1155/2016/2384894.Hansen N.L., Kesch C., Barrett T. et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int 2017;120(5):631-8. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13711.Overduin C.G., Futterer J.J., Barentsz J.O. MRI-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of current clinical results. Curr Urol Rep 2013;14(3):209-13. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-013-0323-z.