Comparative characteristics of prostate cancer detection by transperineal and transrectal fusion-biopsy

Introduction. Prostate biopsy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. In contemporary practice, increasing preference is given to fusion biopsy, which is more reliable and informative than conventional ultrasound‑guided systematic biopsy. Fusion prostate biopsy can be performed via transrectal or transperineal access, and the superiority of one approach over the other is still under investigation.

Objective. To assess and compare the diagnostic performance of transrectal versus transperineal fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer.

Materials & methods. A comparative study was conducted between October 2024 and January 2025 at St. Luke’s Clinical Hospital, Saint Petersburg. A total of 162 men with suspected prostate cancer were enrolled. Group 1 comprised 115 patients who underwent transrectal fusion prostate biopsy. Group 2 included 47 patients who underwent transperineal fusion prostate biopsy using a stabilized technique with a stepper and stabilizer.

Results. In the transrectal fusion biopsy group, prostate cancer was identified in 54 cases (46.95%) on targeted cores and in 81 cases (70.4%) on standard systematic cores. Systematic cores alone detected cancer in 44 patients (38.26%), whereas targeted cores alone did so in 5 patients (4.34%); in an additional 6 patients (5.22%), targeted cores upgraded the Gleason score. Omitting systematic sampling in transrectal fusion biopsy would have reduced overall cancer detection by 38.26%, including omission of clinically significant (aggressive) disease in 9.57% of cases. In the transperineal fusion biopsy group, cancer was detected in 31 patients (65.96%) on targeted cores and in 25 patients (53.19%) on systematic cores. Targeted cores alone identified cancer in 9 cases (19.15%), whereas systematic cores contributed only 3 additional cases (6.38%), all ISUP grade group 1. Targeted sampling led to Gleason score upgrading in 4 patients (8.51%).

Conclusions. For the transperineal fusion technique, omitting systematic biopsies may reduce the number of cores without materially compromising diagnostic accuracy. In contrast, for transrectal fusion biopsy, systematic sampling remains crucial, particularly for detecting aggressive cancers and improving overall diagnostic yield. These approach‑specific differences warrant further investigation to refine diagnostic pathways for prostate cancer.

1. Zhang J, Ma J, Li S, Ma Y. Prostate cancer burden in major BRICS countries, 1990-2019: findings from the 2019 global burden of disease study. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2025;34(1):83-88. DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000890

2. Obiora D, Orikogbo O, Davies BJ, Jacobs BL. Controversies in prostate cancer screening. Urol Oncol. 2025;43(1):49-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.06.022

3. Blanes-Vidal V, Tashk A, Cantuaria ML, Hansen RS, Poulsen CA, Poulsen MH, Krogh ML, Sheikh SP, Nadimi ES. Epidemiological description and trajectories of patients with prostate cancer in Denmark: an observational study of 7448 patients. BMC Res Notes. 2023;16(1):341. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-023-06599-2

4. European Association of Urology. Prostate Cancer Guidelines 2024. Accessed January 18, 2025. URL: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer

5. American Urological Association. Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline 2023. Accessed January 18, 2025. URL: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer

6. Wang H, Wang H, Gao W, Xu P, Wang J, Xu H, Pan D, Ma Y, Zhang R, Zhang P, Pang K. The Comparative Study on the Application Value of Transperineal Prostate Combined Biopsy and Transrectal Prostate Systematic Biopsy in Diagnosing Prostate Cancer in Patients with Different PSA Zones. Urol J. 2025;22(1):37-43. DOI: 10.22037/uj.v21i.8275

7. Berridge C, Omer A, Lopez F, Bryant RJ, Lamb AD. Perspectives on technology – prostate cancer: is local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy really better than transrectal biopsy? BJU Int. 2024;134(2):166-174. DOI: 10.1111/bju.16349

8. Pilatz A, Bonkat G, Wagenlehner F. Infektionskomplikationen bei Prostatabiopsie 2020 – Was hat sich geändert? [Infectious complications following prostate biopsy-Major changes 2020]. Urologe A. 2020;59(12):1486-1491. (In German). DOI: 10.1007/s00120-020-01365-9

9. Takahashi T, Nakashima M, Maruno K, Hazama T, Yamada Y, Kikkawa K, Umeoka S, Tamaki M, Ito N. Comparative Evaluation of Detection Rates for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using MRI-Targeted Biopsy Alone Versus in Combination With Systematic Biopsies: Development of a Risk-Stratification Scoring System. Prostate. 2025;85(3):265-272. DOI: 10.1002/pros.24821

10. Qin F, Liu Z, Ma J, Wu J, Shen Q, Liu Y, Li X. Visibility of mpMRI region of interest on ultrasound during cognitive fusion targeted biopsy predicts prostate cancer detection: a prospective single-center study. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2025;50(7):3305-3312. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04750-6

11. Adams ES, Deivasigamani S, Kotamarti S, Wolf S, Mottaghi M, Aminsharifi A, Taha T, Seguier D, Michael Z, Ivey M, Gupta RT, Polascik TJ. Image-guided multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy augmented with a sextant versus an extended template random biopsy: Comparison of cancer detection rates, complication and functional outcomes. Prostate. 2024;84(13):1224-1233. DOI: 10.1002/pros.24760

12. Pepe P, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F. How Many Cores Should be Obtained During Saturation Biopsy in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance? Experience in 875 Patients Submitted to Repeat Prostate Biopsy. Urology. 2020;137:133-137. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.016

13. Wang C, Xie Q, Yuan L, Ni M, Zhuo D, Gao Y, Liu Y, Liu X, Ma Y, Xiao J, Tao T. Radical prostatectomy without prostate biopsy based on a noninvasive diagnostic strategy: a prospective single-center study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025;28(2):496-502. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00931-y

14. Razdan S, Parekh S, Watts EK, Munoz J, Parmar J, Khanfar NM, Woodhouse C, Razdan S. Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in PIRADS 5 Lesions Without Prior Biopsy: Is Biopsy Really Necessary in This Cohort? J Endourol. 2024;38(10):1062-1069. DOI: 10.1089/end.2024.0124

15. Niu S, Ding X, Liu B, Ao L, Wang H, Chen W, Xu B, Olivero A, Liu J, Gao J, Gao Y, Fu W, Ma X, Li H, Wang B, Liu Y, Zhang X. Radical Prostatectomy Without Prior Biopsy in Selected Patients Evaluated by 18F-Labeled Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Ligand Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Multiparameter Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Single-Center, Prospective, Single-Arm Trial. J Urol. 2024;212(2):280-289. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000004025

16. Parker P, Twiddy M, Rigby A, Whybrow P, Simms M. Evaluating the Role of Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer trial – phase 1: Early experience of micro-ultrasound in the United Kingdom. Ultrasound. 2024;32(4):244-252. DOI: 10.1177/1742271X231226302

17. Pensa J, Brisbane W, Kinnaird A, Kuppermann D, Hughes G, Ushko D, Priester A, Gonzalez S, Reiter R, Chin A, Sisk A, Felker E, Marks L, Geoghegan R. Evaluation of prostate cancer detection using microultrasound versus MRI through co-registration to whole-mount pathology. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):18910. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-69804-7

18. Schroeder DW, Foster BR, Young DJ, Coakley FV. Targeted biopsy of the prostate. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2025;50(1):261-271. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04452-z