10. REFERENCES
1. Rodgers BL. Developing nursing knowledge: Philosophical traditions and influences. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
2. Crocetti E. Epidemiology of prostate cancer in Europe [Internet]. EU Sci Hub 2015 [cited 2018 Jun 1].
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC101382.
3. Turner B, Aslet P. Nurse Practitioner-Led Prostate Biopsy in the United Kingdom. Urol Nurs 2011;31:351–353 3p.
https://library.suna.org/suna/articles/181/view.
4. 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;81:12–5.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23273070.
5. Turner B, Pati. J. Nurse practitioner led prostate biopsy: an audit to determine effectiveness and safety for patients. Int J Urol Nurs 2010;4:87–92.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1749-771X.2010.01099.x.
6. Hori S, Fuge O, Trabucchi K, et al. Can a trained non-physician provider perform transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsies as effectively as an experienced urologist? BJU Int 2013;111:739–44.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22726849.
7. Jones S, Purnendu M, Christian S. Outcome analysis of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy procedure: a retrospective audit comparing associate consultant and nurse specialist in urology to determine the effectiveness and safety of a nurse-led prostate biopsy clinic. Int J Urol Nurs 2015;9:14–21.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ijun.12033.
8. Henderson A, Andrich DE, Pietrasik ME, et al. Outcome analysis and patient satisfaction following octant transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective study comparing consultant urologist, specialist registrar and nurse practitioner in urology. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2004;7:122–5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15069422.
9. Shah J, Baston E. Standard of prostate biopsies undertaken by nurse practitioners. Cancer Nurs Pract 2013;12:32–5.
http://rcnpublishing.com/doi/abs/10.7748/cnp2013.03.12.2.32.e933.
10. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 1. [Internet]. Oxford Cent Evidence-Based Med Oxford: OCEBM; 2011 [cited 2012 Jan 22].
http://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf.
11. Behrens J, Langer G. Evidence-based nursing - Vertrauensbildende Entzauberung der Wissenschaft [Internet]. Bern, Göttingen, Toronto, Seattle: Verlag Hans Huber; 2004.
http://www.socialnet.de/rezensionen/1840.php.
12. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol 2016;69:428–35.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26166626.
13. Patel U, Rickards D. Handbook of transrectal ultrasound and biopsy of the prostate. London, UK: Martin Dunitz Ltd; 2002.
14. Germann W, Stanfield C. Principles of Human Physiology. San Francisco, USA: Benjamin Cummings; 2002.
15. Marieb E, Hoen K. Human Anatomy and Physiology. 8th ed. San Francisco, USA: Benjamin Cummings; 2010.
16. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. Ca Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.3322/caac.21492.
17. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:225–49.
http://doi.wiley.com/10.3322/caac.20006.
18. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, et al. Global Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:74–108.
http://doi.wiley.com/10.3322/canjclin.55.2.74.
19. McCaul KA, Luke CG, Roder DM. Trends in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates in South Australia, 1977-1993. Med J Aust 1995;162:520–2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7776912.
20. Sarma A V, Schottenfeld D. Prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival trends in the United States: 1981-2001. Semin Urol Oncol 2002;20:3–9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11828352.
21. Quinn M, Babb P. Patterns and trends in prostate cancer incidence, survival, prevalence and mortality. Part I: international comparisons. BJU Int 2002;90:162–73.
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.2822.x.
22. Potosky AL, Miller BA, Albertsen PC, et al. The Role of Increasing Detection in the Rising Incidence of Prostate Cancer. JAMA 1995;273:548.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jama.1995.03520310046028.
23. Legler JM, Feuer EJ, Potosky AL, et al. The role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing patterns in the recent prostate cancer incidence decline in the United States. Cancer Causes Control 1998;9:519–27.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9934717.
24. Breslow N, Chan CW, Dhom G, et al. Latent carcinoma of prostate at autopsy in seven areas. Collaborative study organized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyons, France. Int J Cancer 1977;20:680–8.
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ijc.2910200506.
25. Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Crissman JD, et al. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma between the ages of 20-69: an autopsy study of 249 cases. In Vivo 1994 8:439–43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7803731.
26. Haas GP, Delongchamps N, Brawley OW, et al. The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol 2008;15:3866–71.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18304396.
27. Haenszel W, Kurihara M. Studies of Japanese migrants. I. Mortality from cancer and other diseases among Japanese in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 1968;40:43–68.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5635018.
28. Akazaki K, Stemmerman GN. Comparative study of latent carcinoma of the prostate among Japanese in Japan and Hawaii. J Natl Cancer Inst 1973;50:1137–44.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4712588.
29. Moradi T, Delfino RJ, Bergström SR, et al. Cancer risk among Scandinavian immigrants in the US and Scandinavian residents compared with US whites, 1973-89. Eur J Cancer Prev 1998;7:117–25.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9818773.
30. Bailar JC, Mellinger GT, Gleason DF. Survival rates of patients with prostatic cancer, tumor stage, and differentiation--preliminary report. Cancer Chemother reports 1966;50:129–36.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5948715.
31. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT, Arduino LJ, et al. Prediction of Prognosis for Prostatic Adenocarcinoma by Combined Histological Grading and Clinical Staging. J Urol 1974;111:58–64.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534717598894?via%3Dihub.
32. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228–42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16096414.
33. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:244–52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26492179.
34. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol; 1992;23:273–9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1555838.
35. Humphrey PA, Moch H, Cubilla AL, et al. The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part A: Renal, Penile, and Testicular Tumours. Eur Urol 2016;70:93–105.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26935559.
36. Epstein JI. New prostate cancer grade group system correlates with prostate cancer death in addition to biochemical recurrence. Br J Cancer 2016;114:1069–70.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167449.
37. Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours [Internet]. 7th ed. Sobin L, Gospodarowicz M, Wittekind C, editors. New York: 2009.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/101511218.
38. Eastham JA, Riedel E, Scardino PT, et al. Variation of Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels. JAMA 2003;289:2695.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jama.289.20.2695.
39. Stephan C, Klaas M, Müller C, et al. Interchangeability of measurements of total and free prostate-specific antigen in serum with 5 frequently used assay combinations: an update. Clin Chem 2006;52:59–64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11148190.
40. Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R, et al. A Risk-Based Strategy Improves Prostate-Specific Antigen-Driven Detection of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57:79–85.
41. Roobol MJ, Verbeek JFM, 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;72:45–51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28162815.
42. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1767–77.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.
43. El-Shater Bosaily A, Parker C, Brown LC, et al. PROMIS--Prostate MR imaging study: A paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 2015;42:26–40.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460714/.
44. Xue J, Qin Z, Cai H, et al. Comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy for detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget 2017;8:23322–36. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28177897.
45. Ericson KJ, Wenger HC, Rosen AM, et al. Prostate cancer detection following diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Can J Urol 2017;24:8714–20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28436357.
46. Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D, et al. Multifocal High Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia is a Significant Risk Factor for Prostatic Adenocarcinoma. J Urol 2009;182:485–90.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S002253470900901X.
47. Stav K, Siegel YI, Beberashvili I, et al. Provision of information leaflet before urodynamic study reduces the pre-examination anxiety level. Neurourol Urodyn 2016;35:805–8.
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/nau.22799.
48. Wade J, Rosario DJ, Howson J, et al. Role of information in preparing men for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a qualitative study embedded in the ProtecT trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:80.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25889315.
49. McCartney M. Patient information leaflets: a stupid system? BMJ 2013;347:f4748.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23900316.
50. Maciolek KA, D.F. J, E.J. A, et al. Systematic Assessment Reveals Lack of Understandability for Prostate Biopsy Online Patient Education Materials. Urology 2017;109:101–6.
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/urology.
51. Giguere A, Legare F, Grimshaw J, et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes [Systematic Review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;4:4.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23076904.
52. Redmond CE, Nason GJ, Kelly ME, et al. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: Is the information accessible, usable, reliable and readable? Curr Urol 2014;8:32–7.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483281/.
53. Aron M, Rajeev TP, Gupta NP. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate: a randomized controlled study. BJU Int 2000;85:682–5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759665.
54. Carignan A, Roussy JF, Lapointe V, et al. Increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: Time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? Eur Urol 2012;62:453–9.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22575912.
55. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:876–92.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23787356.
56. Bruyère F, Malavaud S, Bertrand P, et al. Prosbiotate: a multicenter, prospective analysis of infectious complications after prostate biopsy. J Urol 2015;193:145–50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25063492.
57. Cuevas O, Oteo J, Lazaro E, et al. Significant ecological impact on the progression of fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli with increased community use of moxifloxacin, levofloxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. J Antimicrob Chemother 2011;66:664–9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21172788.
58. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, et al. Complications After Prostate Biopsy: Data From SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2011;186:1830–4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21944136.
59. Mottet N, Bellmunt, Briers E, et al. EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. [Internet]. 2018th ed. Arnhem, The Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office; 2018.
https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/.
60. Taylor AK, Zembower TR, Nadler RB, et al. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications and cost of care. J Urol 2012;187:1275–9.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22341272.
61. Ryu JW, Jung S Il, Ahn JH, et al. Povidone-iodine rectal cleansing and targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy are associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications. Int Urol Nephrol 2016;48:1763–70.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27495324.
62. Fahmy AM, Kotb A, Youssif TA, et al. Fosfomycin antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: A prospective randomised study. Arab J Urol 2016;14:228–33.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4983165/.
63. Patel U, Dasgupta P, Amoroso P, et al. Infection after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: Increased relative risks after recent international travel or antibiotic use. BJU Int 2012;109:1781–5.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22040349.
64. Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H, et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: A comparison among 3 protocols with 6, 10 and 15 cores. J Urol 2004;171:1478–81.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022534705623245.
65. Zaytoun OM, Anil T, Moussa AS, et al. Morbidity Of Prostate Biopsy After Simplified Versus Complex Preparation Protocols: Assessment of Risk Factors. Urology 2011;77:910–4.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0090429510021710.
66. Anastasiadis A, Zapala L, Cordeiro E, et al. Complications of prostate biopsy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2013;13:829–37.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14737140.2013.811056?tab=permissions&scroll=top&.
67. Challacombe B, Dasgupta P, Patel U, et al. Recognizing and managing the complications of prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2011;108:1233–4.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21958223.
68. Grabe M, Bartoletti R, Bjerklund Johansen T, et al. EAU Guidelines on Urological Infections [Internet]. 2015.
http://uroweb.org/guideline/urological-infections/.
69. Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, 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 (7840).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22232535.
70. Akduman B, Akduman D, Tokgoz H, et al. Long-term fluoroquinolone use before the prostate biopsy may increase the risk of sepsis caused by resistant microorganisms. Urology 2011;78:250–6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21705048.
71. Lodeta B, Trkulja V. Septic complications and hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: incidence rates and outcomes in 913 consecutive biopsies. Int Urol Nephrol 2014;46:2335–6.
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11255-014-0815-x.
72. Kamdar C, Mooppan UMM, Gulmi FA, et al. Multi-drug-resistant bacteremia after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies in hospital employees and their relatives. Urology 2008;72:34–6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18372012.
73. Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X, et al. Infectious Complications and Hospital Admissions After Prostate Biopsy in a European Randomized Trial. Eur Urol 2012;61:1110–4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22244150.
74. Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, et al. Multifocality and Prostate Cancer Detection by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Correlation with Whole-mount Histopathology. Eur Urol 2015;67:569–76.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283814008914.
75. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, 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;71:517–31.
https://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(16)30446-8/fulltext.
76. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. 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;68:438–50.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25480312.
77. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: A randomized study. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 2015;33:17.e1-17.e7.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25443268.
78. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12-core Systematic Biopsy. Eur Urol 2016;69:149–56.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25862143.
79. Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Paakko E, et al. Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer Based on Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Values: Results from a Randomized Prospective Blinded Controlled Trial. Eur Urol 2016;69:419–25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26033153.
80. Carey JM, Korman HJ. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate. Do enemas decrease clinically significant complications? J Urol 2001;166:82–5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11435829.
81. Vallancien G, Prapotnich D, Veillon B, et al. Systematic prostatic biopsies in 100 men with no suspicion of cancer on digital rectal examination. J Urol 1991;146:1308–12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1719243.
82. Abughosh Z, Margolick J, Goldenberg SL, et al. A prospective randomized trial of povidone-iodine prophylactic cleansing of the rectum before transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2013;189:1326–31.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23041343.
83. Gyorfi JR, Otteni C, Brown K, et al. Peri-procedural povidone-iodine rectal preparation reduces microorganism counts and infectious complications following ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of the prostate. World J Urol 2014;32:905–9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24682238.
84. Adams R, Floss K, Frank C, et al. The Handbook of Peri-Operative Medicines [Internet]. UK Clinical Pharmacy Association; 2016.
https://perioperative.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/handbook-of-2016_perioperative-medicines-v1-september-2016-6.pdf.
85. Culkin DJ, Exaire EJ, Green D, et al. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in urological practice: ICUD/AUA review paper. J Urol 2014;192:1026–34.
http://www.auanet.org/guidelines/anticoagulation-and-antiplatelet-therapy.
86. Kariotis I, Philippou P, Volanis D, et al. Safety of ultrasound-guided transrectal extended prostate biopsy in patients receiving low-dose aspirin. Int Braz J Urol 2010;36:308–16.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20602823.
87. Chowdhury R, Abbas A, Idriz S, et al. 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:e64–70.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22959852.
88. Raheem OA, Casey RG, Lynch TH. Does anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy need to be discontinued for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies? A systematic literature review. Curr Urol 2011;5:121–4.
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/327464.
89. Price MJ, Walder JS, Baker BA, et al. Recovery of Platelet Function After Discontinuation of Prasugrel or Clopidogrel Maintenance Dosing in Aspirin-Treated Patients With Stable Coronary Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:2338–43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22698488.
90. Billett HH. Antiplatelet Agents and Arterial Thrombosis. Cardiol Clin 2008;26:189–201.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18406994.
91. Oprea AD, Popescu WM. Perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy. Br J Anaesth 2013;111:i3–17.
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007091217309273.
92. Lee A, Chia SJ. Contemporary outcomes in the detection of prostate cancer using transrectal ultrasound-guided 12-core biopsy in Singaporean men with elevated prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. Asian J Urol 2015;2:187–93.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29264144.
93. Gosselaar C, Roobol M, Roemeling S, et al. The Role of the Digital Rectal Examination in Subsequent Screening Visits in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam. Eur Urol 2008;54:581–8.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283808004168.
94. NHS. Consent to treatment - NHS [Internet]. NHS website 2016 [cited 2018 Dec 14]. p. Conditions section.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/.
95. Taylor H. Informed consent 1: legal basis and implications for practice | Clinical | Nursing Times. Nurs Times 2018;114:25–8.
https://www.nursingtimes.net/roles/nurse-educators/informed-consent-1-legal-basis-and-implications-for-practice/7024574.article.
96. Selley S, Donovan J, Faulkner A, et al. Diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 1997;1:i, 1-96.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9414541.
97. Du J, Johnston J, Studd R. Does waiting after peri-prostatic nerve block reduce pain during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? A randomized controlled trial. ANZ J Surg 2017;87:262–5.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27091235/.
98. Ates F, Dursun F, Malkoc E, et al. Comparison of two different doses of lidocaine on the pain sensation during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Turkish J Urol 2016;42:145–9.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5012440/.
99. Valdez-Flores RA, Campos-Salcedo JG, Torres-Gomez JJ, et al. Prospective comparison among three intrarectal anesthetic treatments combined with periprostatic nerve block during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. World J Urol 2018;36:193–9.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29170792.
100. Anup K, Pawan V, Niraj K, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing three different analgesic techniques for pain control during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: A single center experience. Minerva Urol e Nefrol 2013;65:77–82.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23538313.
101. Hodge K, McNeal J, Stamey T. Ultrasound Guided Transrectal Core Biopsies of the Palpably Abnormal Prostate. J Urol 1989;142:66–70.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534717386639?via%3Dihub.
102. Chen MK, Luo Y, Zhang H, et al. Investigation of optimal prostate biopsy schemes for chinese patients with different clinical characteristics. Urol Int 2012;89:425–32.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23075831.
103. Cormio L, Scattoni V, Lorusso F, et al. Prostate cancer detection rates in different biopsy schemes. Which cores for which patients? World J Urol 2014;32:341–6.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23184141.
104. Ghafoori M, Velayati M, Ghasabeh MA, et al. Prostate biopsy using transrectal ultrasonography; the optimal number of cores regarding cancer detection rate and complications. Iran J Radiol 2015;12 (2) (no.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26060552.
105. Mohammed W, Davis NF, Elamin S, et al. Six-core versus twelve-core prostate biopsy: a retrospective study comparing accuracy, oncological outcomes and safety. Ir J Med Sci 2016;185:219–23.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25786623.
106. Ouzaid I, Xylinas E, Campeggi A, et al. Contemporary pathologic characteristics and oncologic outcomes of prostate cancers missed by 6- and 12-core biopsy and diagnosed with a 21-core biopsy protocol. World J Urol 2013;31:869–74.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22116600.
107. Chambo RC, Tsuji FH, de Oliveira Lima F, et al. What is the ideal core number for ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? Korean J Urol 2014;55:725–31.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4231149/.
108. Chun FKH, Epstein JI, Ficarra V, et al. Optimizing performance and interpretation of prostate biopsy: A critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 2010;58:851–64.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20884114.
109. Leitao T, Alfarelos J, Rodrigues T, et al. A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing the Vienna Nomogram and a Ten-Core Prostate Biopsy Protocol: Effect on Cancer Detection Rate. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017;15:117–21.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27436153.
110. Lughezzani G, Sun M, Budaus L, et al. Effect of the number of biopsy cores on prostate cancer detection and staging. Futur Oncol 2010;6:381–90.
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/fon.10.4?journalCode=fon.
111. Park HK, Lee KY, Kim KH, et al. Intermediate versus low or high prostate-specific antigen density level: Comparison of cancer detection rate between 12- and 18-core prostate biopsy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2010;44:391–8.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20695726.
112. Ukimura O, Marien A, Palmer S, et al. Trans-rectal ultrasound visibility of prostate lesions identified by magnetic resonance imaging increases accuracy of image-fusion targeted biopsies. World J Urol 2015;33:1669–76.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25656687.
113. Yoon BI, Shin TS, Cho HJ, et al. Is it effective to perform two more prostate biopsies according to prostate-specific antigen level and prostate volume in detecting prostate cancer? Prospective study of 10-core and 12-core prostate biopsy. Urol J 2012;9:491–7.
https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/22641493.
114. Nomikos M, Karyotis I, Phillipou P, et al. The implication of initial 24-core transrectal prostate biopsy protocol on the detection of significant prostate cancer and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Int Braz J Urol 2011;37:87–93.
115. Abd TT, Goodman M, Hall J, et al. Comparison of 12-core versus 8-core prostate biopsy: multivariate analysis of large series of US veterans. Urology 2011;77:541–7.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20817273.
116. Remzi M, Fong Y, Dobrovits M, et al. The Vienna nomogram: validation of a novel biopsy strategy defining the optimal number of cores based on patient age and total prostate volume. J Urol 2005;174:1256–60; discussion 1260–1; author reply 1261.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16145388.
117. Lecuona A, Heyns CF. A prospective, randomized trial comparing the Vienna nomogram to an eight-core prostate biopsy protocol. BJU Int 2011;108:204–8.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21087452.
118. Irani J, Blanchet P, Salomon L, et al. Is an extended 20-core prostate biopsy protocol more efficient than the standard 12-core? A randomized multicenter trial. J Urol 2013;190:77–83. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23313205.
119. Zavaski ME, Korus A, Staff I, et al. Prostate biopsy volume predicts final tumor volume. Conn Med 2014;78:167–72.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24772836.
120. Scattoni V, Maccagnano C, Capitanio U, et al. Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores? World J Urol 2014;32:859–69.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24908067.
121. Efesoy O, Bozlu M, Cayan S, et al. Complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided 12-core prostate biopsy: a single center experience with 2049 patients. Turkish J Urol 2013;39:6–11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548577/.
122. Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015;13:1534–61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26656522.
123. Murray KS, Bailey J, Zuk K, et al. A prospective study of erectile function after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2015;116:190–5.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25430505.
124. Zani LE, Clark AO, Rodrigues Netto Jr N. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy [Systematic Review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;5:5.
https://www.cochrane.org/CD006576/PROSTATE_antibiotic-prophylaxis-for-transrectal-prostate-biopsy.
125. Skills for Health. PB2 - Undertake trans-rectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate [Internet]. Ski Heal 2010 [cited 2018 Oct 16]. p. 1–4.
https://tools.skillsforhealth.org.uk/competence/show/html/id/2008/.