{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02384500745156483, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029806259314456036, 'mean_word_length': 5.305164319248826, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
mpMRI/TRUS fusion, saturation, standard and cognitive transrectal prostate biopsy: what? whom? when?

The aim of this literature review was to demonstrate the pluses and minuses of each kind of biopsy, which can be helpful for preparing an algorithm and determining the indications and contraindications for each prostate biopsy (PB). Prostate biopsy is the main method of diagnosing prostate cancer (PC), and it remains relevant even in spite of the appearance of a number of new diagnostic tests and methods. Transrectal 12-core biopsy without pre-biopsy mpMRI remains a routine sampling of prostate material. But with the appearance of a great variety of PB and their introduction into practice, there arises the need to compare these methods with each other. At present, all available studies dealing with the informativity of some biopsy method or another, were conducted in different time periods and cannot reliably reflect their informativity for making a comparison. In our opinion, further research into this problem is required and research works should study the informativity of various kinds of biopsy depending on visualization of a pathological site for suspected prostate cancer, in TRUS and its location coincidence in mpMRI, in Pi-RADSv2.1 classification. Key words: prostate biopsy, prostate cancer, transrectal ultrasound