Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Urogenit Tract Infect > Volume 21(2); 2026 > Article
- Review Article Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy
-
Do Gyeong Lim
, Seung Il Jung -
Urogenital Tract Infection 2026;21(2):47-55.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14777/uti.2652012.006
Published online: August 31, 2026
Department of Urology, Chonnam National University Medical School Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea JFIF d d Ducky d qhttp://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/ |er˭|I|-fGK.rΛp8XV1%K6mvG+tc+qE &ǸC_Nm:l=_/m5^[dߌڇ.c<%:)tQ$Ow~-aY;UJ >=F)2[nk؆?훐 M=l6[4(O.]2#-H^n#->&mp5~Fӛ+|| S,xag% qkEUzUgæBhߕP(7]kFnq?֖Cpru Z6*rEڊtS|*tI*E}7R<,nUU֫^I7Q*mSly%rdȓd8hE<9oHhMfNSRj[i7D[Rj݊+kდq{"$$H?p \̅S?㭻;t~ R߁ )^/>Qj`yt[w ԛ;² ~+ ߔ_ YW~|o] ?x^ᯛ `ʼn;g)T@vWn]>&4l p+$D̢1l|ȨF%-} .9[}w~
ԠLM9hСablfe&QoW !s ?wjLK?s7yO>(=C~_nyǜu? v 3vyo oI@qV-jeES^[9WoSܝh"l2C1a͔CiJ@3:Pճw= /7ovuk+\V;lDgն <[A+r X~d;m!_s8ݖ;;.0llUC+?i#_crʙ1~C.\q u l8Hܶ2m`ܻM3Tov|Bs rɵ"oLS-
DКw=Tv@f '6|YlD͓Y%-#Ѯo%:&!3o%\J<02;K87>^vgƓ# ;ݝmz^Y6=PS39U%~
&f#
}o!muH; ʲŇ˷yvP+&.7e[3'vR4Yj̗IZ`e˽3o[WU{
m[sUbۋZǾۆl6~9'V*.\S2<Sd*zY[aŶ`]C$n.v^Ʌ
dng>ەZ,Mmϑ :n6nϦezW qUJ4! ۇ4R! =>>F n|Q[{pRO 17ƕ~._I ''00k=b՛o}Osðc2'o\3}ݭQ^ 2 . R1yKȣtAݿ-u ܾw!`?1Whn|gzU o[ECWwjUIן)^h#1ɭ!/Z
np;o;ΗŻkXs."6E`Z1
עӐ9Kl8qd q} 2Stt;#j>;խabONŗ=fwP1j)l6J̶|gV 2`y/0E˛6+ԫ1?
6}KW c\KoKͨ2ۅFws*TԞLיuDx .kCzWXhy۶gLu|%TnupǺl-S* P RaLnT+c+*xl.v!.U=|; !_L̎뱚U=4hm:ٯ"y)$:>%(n}X'p[ȴ
^˒4kƓmzDx
\
'Nq amP7nyN݅=
-
Corresponding author: Seung Il Jung Department of Urology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, 322 Seoyang-ro, Hwasun-eup, Hwasun 58128, Korea Email: drjsi@yahoo.co.kr
• Received: March 8, 2026 • Revised: June 1, 2026 • Accepted: June 22, 2026
Copyright © Korean Association of Urogenital Tract Infection and Inflammation
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 932 Views
- 14 Download
- Abstract
- HIGHLIGHTS
- INTRODUCTION
- INFECTIOUS COMPLICATIONS AFTER TRPB
- PRINCIPLES OF ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS
- COMMON PROPHYLACTIC REGIMENS
- TARGETED AND ADJUNCTIVE APPROACHES
- TECHNIQUE-BASED PREVENTION: TRANSPERINEAL BIOPSY
- PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INFECTION PREVENTION
- LIMITATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE
- CONCLUSION
- NOTES
- REFERENCES
Abstract
- Transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB) is widely used for the diagnosis of prostate cancer but carries a clinically meaningful risk of infectious complications due to inoculation and translocation of rectal flora into the urinary tract and bloodstream. Antibiotic prophylaxis remains central to preventing febrile urinary tract infection and sepsis; however, increasing antimicrobial resistance—particularly fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales—has reduced the reliability of conventional empirical regimens in many regions. In this narrative review, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for relevant literature published through February 2026 and synthesized current guideline positions and selected clinical evidence on prophylactic regimens, resistance-adapted regimen selection, and adjunctive measures for TRPB. Cumulative evidence indicates that the efficacy of fluoroquinolone monotherapy has significantly declined in regions with high-resistance prevalence. Alternative or augmented strategies (e.g., cephalosporin- or fosfomycin-based approaches) may reduce infectious complications in selected settings, although their performance appears context-dependent and may be accompanied by shifts in pathogen distribution. Rectal swab-guided targeted prophylaxis can individualize antibiotic selection; however, its effectiveness varies across studies because of methodological heterogeneity and imperfect prediction of clinical outcomes. Technique-based prevention, most notably transperineal biopsy, may reduce infectious risk while decreasing reliance on broad-spectrum prophylaxis. Taken together, infection prevention after prostate biopsy should be individualized according to local susceptibility patterns and patient-level risk while integrating antimicrobial stewardship and selecting adjunctive or technique-based measures when feasible.
HIGHLIGHTS
Rising antimicrobial resistance has reduced the reliability of conventional fluoroquinolone prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Infection prevention should be individualized using local resistance patterns, patient risk, targeted or alternative regimens, and adjunctive rectal antisepsis. When feasible, transperineal biopsy offers a technique-based prevention that can reduce infectious risk and reliance on broad-spectrum antibiotics.
INTRODUCTION
Prostate biopsy remains essential for histologic confirmation of prostate cancer. Transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB) has been widely adopted because it is technically straightforward and cost-effective, but traversal of the rectal mucosa introduces a persistent risk of infectious complications, ranging from asymptomatic bacteriuria to febrile urinary tract infection (UTI) and life-threatening sepsis [1,2]. Antibiotic prophylaxis is therefore routinely used; however, rising antimicrobial resistance—particularly fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli and other Enterobacterales—has increasingly undermined the effectiveness of traditional empirical regimens [3,4]. In parallel, targeted prophylaxis guided by rectal cultures, adjunctive rectal antisepsis, and alternative biopsy techniques such as transperineal biopsy (TPB) have emerged as strategies to reduce infections while limiting unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure [5,6]. This review summarizes (1) the epidemiology and clinical spectrum of post-TRPB infections, (2) evidence for commonly used and resistance-adapted prophylactic regimens, and (3) targeted, adjunctive, and technique-based approaches to minimize infectious complications in the era of increasing antimicrobial resistance.
We performed a targeted search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for studies published through February 2026 using combinations of keywords related to TRPB, antibiotic prophylaxis, and postbiopsy infection. We prioritized clinical guidelines, randomized trials, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, and representative observational studies reporting infectious outcomes and resistance-adapted strategies. Evidence was selected to reflect heterogeneity across resistance ecologies and practice settings, with interpretation focused on clinical applicability and antimicrobial stewardship. Reference lists of key guidelines and landmark randomized trials were reviewed to identify additional relevant studies.
INFECTIOUS COMPLICATIONS AFTER TRPB
Infectious complications after TRPB span asymptomatic bacteriuria, febrile UTI, prostatitis, bacteremia, and sepsis [1,2]. Because bacterial inoculation occurs during needle passage through the rectal wall, the pathogenesis is closely linked to transfer of rectal flora into the prostate, urinary tract, and bloodstream. E. coli remains the most frequently isolated pathogen, although other gram-negative organisms and polymicrobial infections are increasingly reported in some regions [2].
Fluoroquinolones have historically been favored for prophylaxis because of oral bioavailability and prostatic penetration, but the emergence and spread of fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli have reduced the effectiveness of conventional fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis [3]. High background resistance, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production in some settings, further complicates empirical regimen selection and is associated with higher rates of postbiopsy infection and sepsis [4].
PRINCIPLES OF ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS
Professional society guidelines (e.g., the American Urological Association and European Association of Urology) recommend prophylaxis for TRPB and emphasize risk-adapted selection aligned with local resistance patterns and antimicrobial stewardship [5,7].
The primary goal of prophylaxis is to reduce the bacterial burden of rectal flora and prevent bacterial translocation during biopsy while minimizing adverse effects and selective pressure for resistance. Optimal regimens provide effective coverage against likely pathogens—especially E. coli—achieve adequate exposure at the time of biopsy, and avoid unnecessarily broad spectrum or prolonged duration [2,5].
Prophylactic success depends on aligning dosing with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties so that peak tissue and serum concentrations coincide with the biopsy procedure [1,2]. Intravenous agents (e.g., third-generation cephalosporins, aminoglycosides) provide predictable early systemic exposure, whereas oral agents require sufficient lead time to ensure adequate concentrations. In the setting of resistance, optimizing exposure is necessary but may not overcome pharmacodynamic failure when organisms are nonsusceptible [5].
COMMON PROPHYLACTIC REGIMENS
Ciprofloxacin (CIP) and levofloxacin have been widely used as monotherapy, but rising resistance has diminished their reliability as empirical prophylaxis in many regions [3,5]. Where local resistance prevalence is high, guidelines increasingly discourage routine fluoroquinolone monotherapy and favor resistance-adapted or alternative strategies [5].
Third-generation cephalosporins such as ceftriaxone are commonly used either alone or as part of augmented regimens to broaden coverage against fluoroquinolone-resistant organisms [1,2]. Although some centers extend prophylaxis beyond a single periprocedural dose in high-risk settings, prolonged courses may increase selective pressure; therefore, duration should be minimized whenever adequate protection can be achieved with shorter regimens [5].
Single-dose aminoglycosides (e.g., gentamicin or amikacin) are sometimes added to fluoroquinolones to enhance activity against resistant gram-negative organisms. However, evidence from Asian settings with high fluoroquinolone resistance suggests that incremental benefit may be limited: a Korean multicenter trial found no significant reduction in infectious complications with amikacin plus CIP compared with CIP alone, and a Japanese randomized trial similarly reported no advantage of adding amikacin to levofloxacin prophylaxis [8,9]. Potential explanations include limited tissue penetration and timing or exposure mismatches during the brief window of bacterial translocation. In contrast, observational studies have reported reductions in postbiopsy infection and septicemia after the addition of amikacin to fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis [10,11]. These conflicting findings suggest that the effectiveness of aminoglycoside augmentation may depend on study design, local resistance patterns, dosing, and timing of administration.
Fosfomycin (FOS) has been evaluated as an alternative or augmented prophylactic option because of activity against multidrug-resistant (MDR) E. coli and convenient oral dosing [12,13]. A systematic review and meta-analysis reported lower postbiopsy infection rates with FOS-based prophylaxis compared with fluoroquinolone-only regimens [14]. Observational data from Korea and Canada suggest that FOS augmentation (e.g., CIP plus FOS) may reduce infectious complications in settings with high fluoroquinolone resistance [15-17]. Nevertheless, effectiveness appears context-dependent, and pathogen shifts toward non–E. coli gram-negative organisms such as Klebsiella species have been reported in some cohorts, underscoring the need to consider local epidemiology when adopting FOS-based strategies [15]. In the Korean multicenter cohort, culture-confirmed breakthrough infections after FOS monotherapy frequently involved non–E. coli gram-negative organisms, with multiple Klebsiella spp. isolates reported among infected cases [16]. Practical interpretation is therefore regimen-and ecology-specific: if baseline fluoroquinolone (FQ) resistance is high and local postbiopsy infections are dominated by CIP-resistant E. coli, CIP/FOS augmentation is a reasonable stewardship-conscious option; if local breakthrough infections show increasing non–E. coli gram-negative pathogens (e.g., Klebsiella spp.), FOS monotherapy should be used cautiously and protocols should be revised based on pathogen-specific surveillance.
TARGETED AND ADJUNCTIVE APPROACHES
Prebiopsy rectal swab cultures can identify colonization with fluoroquinolone-resistant organisms and enable individualized antibiotic selection. Some studies have reported reduced infectious complications with targeted prophylaxis [18], whereas others have shown inconsistent benefit compared with empirical strategies, particularly in settings with high multidrug resistance [19]. Limitations include lack of standardized sampling and culture methods, incomplete representation of the rectal microbiome, and residual infections despite in vitro susceptibility, likely reflecting host factors, inoculum effects, and exposure dynamics. In routine practice, implementation is further constrained by laboratory turnaround time, coordination with biopsy scheduling, and incremental costs of culture and susceptibility testing; therefore, targeted prophylaxis may be most useful when applied selectively to high-risk patients or in centers with established prebiopsy workflows and microbiology support.
Adjunctive rectal preparation aims to reduce bacterial load at the biopsy site without adding antibiotic selective pressure. Rectal cleansing with povidone-iodine has been associated with lower infectious complications when used with standard prophylaxis and is particularly attractive in regions with high fluoroquinolone resistance [4,20]. Japanese perioperative infection guidance also endorses tailored prophylaxis and rectal preparation in selected settings [21]. Evidence for probiotics remains limited and insufficient to recommend routine use for TRPB infection prevention [2].
TECHNIQUE-BASED PREVENTION: TRANSPERINEAL BIOPSY
TPB avoids traversal of the rectal mucosa and therefore markedly reduces exposure to rectal flora. Randomized trials have shown comparable cancer detection between TPB and TRPB, while infection outcomes have ranged from significantly lower rates with TPB to no significant between-group difference [6,22-24]. Reflecting these data, European guidance increasingly favors TPB when feasible as a strategy that can reduce reliance on broad-spectrum prophylaxis in the resistance era [5,25]. Barriers to widespread adoption include training, equipment, and anesthesia requirements, although advances in local anesthesia techniques have improved outpatient feasibility [2].
Recent randomized trials provide contemporary direct comparisons of TPB versus TRPB. In PREVENT, TPB performed without prophylactic antibiotics resulted in 0 of 372 (0%) infections versus 6 of 370 (1.6%) with TRPB using rectal culture-guided prophylaxis (difference, -1.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.5 to -0.3; p=0.02) [6]. In ProBE-PC, 30-day composite infectious complications were similar between arms (2.6% TRPB vs. 2.7% TPB; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.43–2.65; p=0.99), with no sepsis reported in either group [22]. The magnetic resonance imaging-targeted PERFECT trial likewise reported no significant differences in grade ≥2 adverse events (35.7% TP vs. 40.5% TR, p=0.426) and documented one grade 3 sepsis event in the TR arm (0.8%) [26]. Collectively, these trials support TPB as a technique-based option to reduce infectious risk and reliance on broader prophylaxis, while underscoring that event rates and endpoint definitions vary across studies (Table 1).
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INFECTION PREVENTION
A pragmatic approach is to stratify patients and choose prophylaxis based on (1) local resistance prevalence, (2) individual risk factors (e.g., recent fluoroquinolone exposure, prior postbiopsy infection, recent hospitalization, long-term care facility (LTC) residence, indwelling catheter, immunosuppression), and (3) procedural feasibility of a technique-based option. When a TPB is feasible, it can be considered to minimize infection risk and broad-spectrum antibiotic exposure. If a transrectal approach is used, consider rectal povidone- iodine preparation and select an empirical or targeted regimen aligned with local susceptibility data; reserve augmented or alternative regimens (e.g., cephalosporin- or FOS-based strategies) for high-risk patients or settings with high fluoroquinolone resistance. Antibiotic duration should be minimized to the shortest effective periprocedural course to support antimicrobial stewardship. An overview of a practical, risk-adapted workflow is provided in Fig. 1.
(1) Consider TPB when feasible; otherwise use transrectal biopsy with a prevention bundle (e.g., rectal antisepsis and optimized prophylaxis).
(2) Use culture-guided targeted prophylaxis selectively when logistics allow and resistance prevalence is high.
(3) Tailor empirical regimens to local ecology; avoid routine prolonged courses and reassess institutional protocols periodically.
Representative supporting evidence is summarized in Table 2.
Clinical recommendations (pragmatic, ecology-aware)
• Low-risk patients in low-resistance settings: single-dose, narrowest effective prophylaxis; avoid extended courses.
• High baseline fluoroquinolone resistance or prior antibiotic exposure: avoid routine FQ monotherapy; consider augmented regimens (e.g., CIP/FOS) or non‑FQ pathways aligned with local antibiograms.
• High-risk patients (recent hospitalization/LTC, catheter, immunosuppression, prior postbiopsy infection, known MDR/ESBL): prioritize targeted prophylaxis (rectal swab-guided) when feasible and add adjunctive rectal antisepsis for TRPB
workflows.
• Where TPB is feasible: consider TPB as a technique-based strategy to reduce infection risk and dependence on escalating prophylaxis; tailor antibiotics per institutional policy and patient risk.
• Track outcomes and pathogen distribution: routinely audit postbiopsy infections (severity, pathogens, resistance) and update local protocols accordingly.
LIMITATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE
First, infectious endpoints vary across studies (definitions, severity thresholds, and follow-up windows), limiting direct comparison of absolute event rates. Second, prophylaxis protocols in comparator arms differ (drug choice, timing, duration, and cointerventions such as rectal antisepsis), introducing clinical heterogeneity. Third, many antibiotic-regimen studies are observational and may be confounded by center practice changes over time, baseline risk, and admission thresholds. Fourth, severe outcomes such as sepsis are rare; several trials may be underpowered for high-grade infection endpoints. Finally, effectiveness is ecology-dependent—local resistance prevalence and pathogen distribution may limit generalizability across regions and healthcare systems.
CONCLUSION
Infectious complications after TRPB remain clinically significant, and increasing antimicrobial resistance has reduced the reliability of traditional empirical prophylaxis in many regions. A practical near-term approach is risk-adapted prophylaxis that incorporates local susceptibility patterns and selective use of adjunctive measures (e.g., povidone-iodine rectal cleansing) while minimizing unnecessary spectrum and duration. In the longer term, technique-based prevention and workflow changes—including TPB where feasible—may further reduce infectious risk and may help limit escalation to broader prophylactic regimens.
-
Funding/Support
This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
-
Conflict of Interest
The authors have nothing to disclose.
-
Author Contribution
Conceptualization: SIJ, DGL; Data curation: DGL; Methodology: SIJ, DGL; Project administration: SIJ; Visualization: DGL; Writing-original draft: DGL; Writing review & editing: SIJ, DGL.
NOTES
Fig. 1.
Practical algorithm to reduce infectious complications after prostate biopsy. TP, transperineal; TR, transrectal; UTI, urinary tract infection; LTC, long-term care facility; MDR, multidrug-resistant; ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; FQ, fluoroquinolone.
Table 1.
Key randomized trials comparing transperineal and transrectal biopsy routes and infectious outcomes
| Trial (yr) | Setting/design | Arms (TP vs. TR) | Antibiotic strategy | Infection endpoint/window | Key finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PREVENT (2024) | Multicenter RCT; 10 centers; N=875 randomized (372 TP, 370 TR underwent biopsy) | TPB vs. TRPB | TPB: no antibiotics; TRPB: rectal culture-guided targeted prophylaxis | Primary: infection (uncomplicated/complicated GU infection or urosepsis), 7 days | Infections: 0/372 (0%) TPB vs. 6/370 (1.6%) TRPB; difference -1.6% (95% CI, -3.5 to -0.3); p=0.02 [6] |
| ProBE-PC (2024) | Pragmatic RCT; office biopsy under local anesthesia; N=763 randomized (367 TP, 351 TR underwent biopsy) | TPB vs. TRPB | Prophylaxis per protocol (regimens not uniform across centers) | Primary: 30-day composite infectious complications (fever, GU infection, antibiotics, visit/ED, hospitalization, sepsis) | Composite infection: 9/351 (2.6%) TRPB vs. 10/367 (2.7%) TPB; OR 1.06 (95% CI, 0.43–2.65); p=0.99; sepsis 0 in both arms [22] |
| PERFECT (2024) | Noninferiority RCT; MRI-positive biopsy-naïve; N=270 randomized (135 TP, 135 TR) | MRI-targeted TP vs. TR biopsy | Antibiotic prophylaxis per protocol (trial-specific) | Secondary: complications/adverse events (grade ≥2); sepsis reported | Grade ≥2 adverse events: 35.7% TP vs. 40.5% TR (p=0.426); grade 3 sepsis: 1 TR patient (0.8%) [26] |
Table 2.
Key evidence by strategy to reduce infectious complications after prostate biopsy
| Strategy type | Key studies | Infection outcomes | Clinical implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technique-based (route) | Hu et al. [6] (PREVENT), Mian et al. [22] (ProBE-PC), Guo et al. [23], Hara et al. [24], Ploussard et al. [26] (PERFECT) | Across contemporary RCTs, infectious events are rare overall; direction of effect favors TPB or shows no clinically meaningful infectious disadvantage vs. TRPB when standardized endpoints are used. Cancer detection (csPCa) is generally comparable; pain/PROs are heterogeneous and workflow-dependent. | Interpret infection outcomes within each trial’s endpoint definition (e.g., 7-day vs. 30-day; severity grading) and comparator prophylaxis protocol. TPB is a technique-based option to reduce dependence on escalating empirical antibiotics, but adoption depends on equipment, training, and anesthesia pathway. |
| Adjunctive antisepsis | Ryu et al. [4], Hwang et al. [20], Matsumoto et al. [21] | Adjunctive rectal antisepsis added to antibiotics reduces bacteremia/clinically relevant infections in several studies, with effect varying by baseline resistance and cointerventions. | Useful low-resistance-risk adjunct—particularly where FQ resistance is high and TRPB remains in use. Standardize timing/technique; integrate into TR prevention bundle rather than extending antibiotic duration. |
| Targeted prophylaxis | Taylor et al. [18], Liss et al. [19], Matsumoto et al. [21] | Often reduces postbiopsy sepsis/infection when FQ-resistant rectal flora is identified and an active agent is selected; however, benefit is inconsistent across settings due to workflow and methodological heterogeneity (sampling, media, timing). Infections can occur despite in vitro susceptibility. | Best for centers with microbiology capacity and scheduling control or for high-risk patients. Interpret ‘negative’ trials in context of low event rates and non-standardized methods; avoid assuming universal benefit. |
| Augmented/alternative regimens | Son et al. [8], Miyazaki et al. [9], Kehinde et al. [10], Batura et al. [11], Lim et al. [15,16], Morin et al. [17] | Aminoglycoside augmentation: results conflict— benefit in some pre-/postobservational cohorts, but RCT/prospective data in high-resistance settings show limited benefit with single-dose augmentation. Observational studies have reported reduced postbiopsy infection or septicemia after amikacin augmentation. Fosfomycin: effect depends on regimen (monotherapy vs. augmentation). | Do not treat ‘aminoglycoside augmentation’ as a class effect—timing/intensity and PK exposure window matter. Prefer risk-/ecology-adapted augmentation with clear endpoint targets. For fosfomycin, report both overall and pathogen-specific outcomes; consider local non–E. coli resistance patterns and the prevalence of non–E. coli pathogens. |
- 1. Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, Meng MV, Raman JD, Spears V, 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;198:329-34.ArticlePubMed
- 2. Bjurlin MA, Wysock JS, Taneja SS. Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications. Urol Clin North Am 2014;41:299-313.PubMedPMC
- 3. Liss MA, Taylor SA, Batura D, Steensels D, Chayakulkeeree M, Soenens C, et al. Fluoroquinolone resistant rectal colonization predicts risk of infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy. J Urol 2014;192:1673-8.ArticlePubMed
- 4. Ryu JW, Jung SI, Ahn JH, Hwang EC, Yu HS, Kang TW, 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.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 5. European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on urological infections [Internet]. Arnhem (Netherlands): European Association of Urology; 2025 [cited 2026 Feb 27]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urological-infections
- 6. Hu JC, Assel M, Allaf ME, Vickers AJ, Ehdaie B, Cohen AJ, et al. Transperineal vs transrectal prostate biopsy—the PREVENT randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2024;10:1590-3.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 7. Lightner DJ, Wymer K, Sanchez J, Kavoussi L. Best practice statement on urologic procedures and antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol 2020;203:351-6.ArticlePubMed
- 8. Son KC, Chung HS, Jung SI, Kim MS, Hwang EC, Kim JW, et al. Trial comparing a combined regimen of amikacin and ciprofloxacin to ciprofloxacin alone as transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis in the era of high Fluoroquinolone-Resistant rectal flora. J Korean Med Sci 2018;33:e113.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 9. Miyazaki Y, Akamatsu S, Kanamaru S, Kamiyama Y, Sengiku A, Iguchi R, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing a combined regimen of amikacin and levofloxacin to levofloxacin alone as prophylaxis in transrectal prostate needle biopsy. Urol J 2016;13:2533-40.PubMed
- 10. Kehinde EO, Al-Maghrebi M, Sheikh M, Anim JT. Combined ciprofloxacin and amikacin prophylaxis in the prevention of septicemia after transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate. J Urol 2013;189:911-5.ArticlePubMed
- 11. Batura D, Rao GG, Bo Nielsen P, Charlett A. Adding Amikacin to Fluoroquinolone-based antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces prostate biopsy infection rates. BJU Int 2011;107:760-4.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 12. Rhodes NJ, Gardiner BJ, Neely MN, Grayson ML, Ellis AG, Lawrentschuk N, et al. Optimal timing of oral Fosfomycin administration for pre-prostate biopsy prophylaxis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015;70:2068-73.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 13. VanScoy B, McCauley J, Bhavnani SM, Ellis-Grosse EJ, Ambrose PG. Relationship between fosfomycin exposure and amplification of Escherichia coli subpopulations with reduced susceptibility in a Hollow-Fiber infection model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016;60:5141-5.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 14. Gu HM, Gu JS, Chung HS, Jung SI, Kwon D, Kim MH, et al. Fosfomycin for antibiotic prophylaxis in men undergoing a transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicina (Kaunas) 2023;59:911.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 15. Lim DG, Jung SI, Kim MS, Chung HS, Hwang EC, Kwon DD. Comparison of a combined regimen of fosfomycin and ciprofloxacin with ciprofloxacin alone as antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy in the era of high Fluoroquinolone-resistant rectal flora. Prostate Int 2021;9:163-8.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 16. Lim DG, Jung SI, Hwang EC, Kim TH, Bae S, Huh JS, et al. Effectiveness of fosfomycin-based antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a Korean multicenter study. Investig Clin Urol 2023;64:289-95.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 17. Morin A, Bergevin M, Rivest N, Lapointe SP. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy: compared efficacy of ciprofloxacin vs. the ciprofloxacin/fosfomycin tromethamine combination. Can Urol Assoc J 2020;14:267-72.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 18. Taylor AK, Zembower TR, Nadler RB, Scheetz MH, Cashy JP, Bowen D, 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.ArticlePubMed
- 19. Liss MA, Johnson JR, Porter SB, Johnston B, Clabots C, Gillis K, et al. Clinical and microbiological determinants of infection after transrectal prostate biopsy. Clin Infect Dis 2015;60:979-87.ArticlePubMed
- 20. Hwang EC, Jung SI, Seo YH, Jeong SH, Kwon DD, Park K, et al. Risk factors for and prophylactic effect of Povidone-iodine rectal cleansing on infectious complications after prostate biopsy: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urol Nephrol 2015;47:595-601.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 21. Matsumoto T, Kiyota H, Matsukawa M, Yasuda M, Arakawa S, Monden K, et al. Japanese guidelines for prevention of perioperative infections in urological field. Int J Urol 2007;14:890-909.ArticlePubMed
- 22. Mian BM, Feustel PJ, Aziz A, Kaufman RP, Bernstein A, Avulova S, et al. Complications following transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: results of the ProBE-PC randomized clinical trial. J Urol 2024;211:205-13.PubMed
- 23. Guo LH, Wu R, Xu HX, Xu JM, Wu J, Wang S, et al. Comparison between ultrasound guided transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial. Sci Rep 2015;5:16089.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 24. Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, Kondo N, Yokoyoma T, Miyaji Y, et al. Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 2008;71:191-5.ArticlePubMed
- 25. European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer [Internet]. Arnhem (Netherlands): European Association of Urology; 2025 [cited 2026 Feb 27]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer
- 26. Ploussard G, Barret E, Fiard G, Lenfant L, Malavaud B, Giannarini G, et al. Transperineal versus transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis: final results of the randomized PERFECT trial (CCAFUPR1). Eur Urol Oncol 2024;7:1080-7.ArticlePubMed
REFERENCES
Figure & Data
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
ePub Link
Cite
XML DownloadAntibiotic Prophylaxis for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy
Fig. 1. Practical algorithm to reduce infectious complications after prostate biopsy. TP, transperineal; TR, transrectal; UTI, urinary tract infection; LTC, long-term care facility; MDR, multidrug-resistant; ESBL, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase; FQ, fluoroquinolone.
Fig. 1.
Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy
| Trial (yr) | Setting/design | Arms (TP vs. TR) | Antibiotic strategy | Infection endpoint/window | Key finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PREVENT (2024) | Multicenter RCT; 10 centers; N=875 randomized (372 TP, 370 TR underwent biopsy) | TPB vs. TRPB | TPB: no antibiotics; TRPB: rectal culture-guided targeted prophylaxis | Primary: infection (uncomplicated/complicated GU infection or urosepsis), 7 days | Infections: 0/372 (0%) TPB vs. 6/370 (1.6%) TRPB; difference -1.6% (95% CI, -3.5 to -0.3); p=0.02 [6] |
| ProBE-PC (2024) | Pragmatic RCT; office biopsy under local anesthesia; N=763 randomized (367 TP, 351 TR underwent biopsy) | TPB vs. TRPB | Prophylaxis per protocol (regimens not uniform across centers) | Primary: 30-day composite infectious complications (fever, GU infection, antibiotics, visit/ED, hospitalization, sepsis) | Composite infection: 9/351 (2.6%) TRPB vs. 10/367 (2.7%) TPB; OR 1.06 (95% CI, 0.43–2.65); p=0.99; sepsis 0 in both arms [22] |
| PERFECT (2024) | Noninferiority RCT; MRI-positive biopsy-naïve; N=270 randomized (135 TP, 135 TR) | MRI-targeted TP vs. TR biopsy | Antibiotic prophylaxis per protocol (trial-specific) | Secondary: complications/adverse events (grade ≥2); sepsis reported | Grade ≥2 adverse events: 35.7% TP vs. 40.5% TR (p=0.426); grade 3 sepsis: 1 TR patient (0.8%) [26] |
| Strategy type | Key studies | Infection outcomes | Clinical implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technique-based (route) | Hu et al. [6] (PREVENT), Mian et al. [22] (ProBE-PC), Guo et al. [23], Hara et al. [24], Ploussard et al. [26] (PERFECT) | Across contemporary RCTs, infectious events are rare overall; direction of effect favors TPB or shows no clinically meaningful infectious disadvantage vs. TRPB when standardized endpoints are used. Cancer detection (csPCa) is generally comparable; pain/PROs are heterogeneous and workflow-dependent. | Interpret infection outcomes within each trial’s endpoint definition (e.g., 7-day vs. 30-day; severity grading) and comparator prophylaxis protocol. TPB is a technique-based option to reduce dependence on escalating empirical antibiotics, but adoption depends on equipment, training, and anesthesia pathway. |
| Adjunctive antisepsis | Ryu et al. [4], Hwang et al. [20], Matsumoto et al. [21] | Adjunctive rectal antisepsis added to antibiotics reduces bacteremia/clinically relevant infections in several studies, with effect varying by baseline resistance and cointerventions. | Useful low-resistance-risk adjunct—particularly where FQ resistance is high and TRPB remains in use. Standardize timing/technique; integrate into TR prevention bundle rather than extending antibiotic duration. |
| Targeted prophylaxis | Taylor et al. [18], Liss et al. [19], Matsumoto et al. [21] | Often reduces postbiopsy sepsis/infection when FQ-resistant rectal flora is identified and an active agent is selected; however, benefit is inconsistent across settings due to workflow and methodological heterogeneity (sampling, media, timing). Infections can occur despite in vitro susceptibility. | Best for centers with microbiology capacity and scheduling control or for high-risk patients. Interpret ‘negative’ trials in context of low event rates and non-standardized methods; avoid assuming universal benefit. |
| Augmented/alternative regimens | Son et al. [8], Miyazaki et al. [9], Kehinde et al. [10], Batura et al. [11], Lim et al. [15,16], Morin et al. [17] | Aminoglycoside augmentation: results conflict— benefit in some pre-/postobservational cohorts, but RCT/prospective data in high-resistance settings show limited benefit with single-dose augmentation. Observational studies have reported reduced postbiopsy infection or septicemia after amikacin augmentation. Fosfomycin: effect depends on regimen (monotherapy vs. augmentation). | Do not treat ‘aminoglycoside augmentation’ as a class effect—timing/intensity and PK exposure window matter. Prefer risk-/ecology-adapted augmentation with clear endpoint targets. For fosfomycin, report both overall and pathogen-specific outcomes; consider local non–E. coli resistance patterns and the prevalence of non–E. coli pathogens. |
Table 1. Key randomized trials comparing transperineal and transrectal biopsy routes and infectious outcomes
TP, transperineal; TR, transrectal; TPB, transperineal biopsy; TRPB, transrectal prostate biopsy; RCT, randomized controlled trial; GU, genitourinary; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; ED, Emergency Department; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.
Table 2. Key evidence by strategy to reduce infectious complications after prostate biopsy
RCT, randomized controlled trial; TPB, transperineal biopsy; TRPB, transrectal prostate biopsy; csPCa, clinically significant prostate cancer; PRO, patient-reported outcome; FQ, fluoroquinolone; TR, transrectal; PK, pharmacokinetic;
