Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

For many years, transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies have been performed to establish a histological diagnosis of prostate cancer. This has been the recommended standard of care procedure, but has always carried risks, in particular the risk of post-procedural sepsis, and the associated antibiotic burden and risk of development of antibiotic resistance. Transperineal (TP) prostate biopsies performed under local anaesthetic (LA) have been proposed as a possible solution to these issues, with potentially lower infectious complications, and avoidance of need for antibiotic prophylaxis. The European Association of Urology produced guidance in 2023 with 'weak' recommendations in favour of LATP biopsy as a new standard of care, citing its safety profile. Both the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK, and the American Urological Association in the United States, have concluded for now that the body of evidence is inadequate and not offered a similar recommendation. We discuss the available evidence, pros and cons of each technique, and the status of current trials in the field. We believe that clinical equipoise remains necessary, given the disparity in national and international guidelines highlighting the need for large randomised controlled trials to answer the question: is LATP biopsy really better than TRUS biopsy?

Original publication




Journal article



Publication Date



cancer detection, complications, infections, prostate, transperineal biopsy, transrectal biopsy