Transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy under intravenous anaesthesia: a clinical, microbiological and cost analysis of 2048 cases over 11 years at a tertiary institution.
Aged
Anesthesia, Intravenous
/ methods
Follow-Up Studies
Forecasting
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Perineum
Prostate
/ diagnostic imaging
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Rectum
Tertiary Care Centers
/ statistics & numerical data
Journal
Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases
ISSN: 1476-5608
Titre abrégé: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815755
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
received:
24
04
2020
accepted:
24
07
2020
revised:
10
07
2020
pubmed:
8
8
2020
medline:
25
11
2021
entrez:
8
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Transrectal (TR) and transperineal (TP) approaches for prostate biopsy have different morbidity profiles. Our institution transitioned to a preference for multiparametric MRI-based triage and TP biopsy since 2014. The aim of this study was to compare clinical, microbiological and health economic outcomes between TR and TP prostate biopsy. A consecutive cohort study considered prostate biopsies over an 11 year period. Hospital presentations across the region within 30 days of biopsy were analysed for details and subsequent outcomes according to biopsy approach. Cost for each encounter (routine and unplanned) were analysed and generalised linear models applied, as well as cost implications for inclusion of mpMRI-based triage and TP biopsy preference. In total, 2048 prostate biopsies were performed. Similar re-presentation rates per occurred for each biopsy approach (90 patients, TR 4.8%, TP 3.8%, p = 0.29), with 23 patients presenting more than once (119 total presentations). Presentations after TR biopsy were more likely to be of infectious aetiology (TR 2.92%, TP 0.26% de novo, p < 0.001) and result in hospital admission (TR 43/49, 93.4%; TP 14/24, 58.3%; p = 0.007) for similar rates of urinary retention (TR 2.76% vs TP 3.63%, p = 1). The mean overall cost (biopsy and re-presentations) was higher for the TP group (p < 0.001), adjusted for year and age, but reduced over time and was similar for patients who re-presented (p = 0.98). Incorporation of mpMRI (with subsequently avoided biopsies), TP biopsy and re-presentations resulted in AU$783.27 saving per biopsy. TR biopsy resulted in more infectious complications and hospital admissions than TP biopsy for similar rates of re-presentation and urinary retention. TP biopsy costs reduced over time and use in conjunction with mpMRI provides an overall cost saving. Routine TP biopsy is safe and feasible, with further cost savings expected with other approaches (local anaesthetic) under investigation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Transrectal (TR) and transperineal (TP) approaches for prostate biopsy have different morbidity profiles. Our institution transitioned to a preference for multiparametric MRI-based triage and TP biopsy since 2014. The aim of this study was to compare clinical, microbiological and health economic outcomes between TR and TP prostate biopsy.
METHODS
A consecutive cohort study considered prostate biopsies over an 11 year period. Hospital presentations across the region within 30 days of biopsy were analysed for details and subsequent outcomes according to biopsy approach. Cost for each encounter (routine and unplanned) were analysed and generalised linear models applied, as well as cost implications for inclusion of mpMRI-based triage and TP biopsy preference.
RESULTS
In total, 2048 prostate biopsies were performed. Similar re-presentation rates per occurred for each biopsy approach (90 patients, TR 4.8%, TP 3.8%, p = 0.29), with 23 patients presenting more than once (119 total presentations). Presentations after TR biopsy were more likely to be of infectious aetiology (TR 2.92%, TP 0.26% de novo, p < 0.001) and result in hospital admission (TR 43/49, 93.4%; TP 14/24, 58.3%; p = 0.007) for similar rates of urinary retention (TR 2.76% vs TP 3.63%, p = 1). The mean overall cost (biopsy and re-presentations) was higher for the TP group (p < 0.001), adjusted for year and age, but reduced over time and was similar for patients who re-presented (p = 0.98). Incorporation of mpMRI (with subsequently avoided biopsies), TP biopsy and re-presentations resulted in AU$783.27 saving per biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS
TR biopsy resulted in more infectious complications and hospital admissions than TP biopsy for similar rates of re-presentation and urinary retention. TP biopsy costs reduced over time and use in conjunction with mpMRI provides an overall cost saving. Routine TP biopsy is safe and feasible, with further cost savings expected with other approaches (local anaesthetic) under investigation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32759972
doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-0263-x
pii: 10.1038/s41391-020-0263-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
169-176Références
Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol. 2011;186:1830–4.
pubmed: 21944136
Wagenlehner FM, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, Tandogdu Z, Cek M, Grabe M, et al. Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:521–7.
pubmed: 22704727
Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, Holmes M, Grummet J, Naber K, et al. Prostate biopsy-related infection: a systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches. Urology. 2017;104:11–21.
pubmed: 28007492
Derin O, Fonseca L, Sanchez-Salas R, Roberts MJ Infectious complications of prostate biopsy: winning battles but not war. World J Urol. 2020.
Galfano A, Novara G, Iafrate M, Cosentino M, Cavalleri S, Artibani W, et al. Prostate biopsy: the transperineal approach. EAU-EBU Update Ser. 2007;5:241–9.
Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Bennett A, Butler WM, Amamovich E. Incidence, grade and distribution of prostate cancer following transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. World J Urol. 2017;35:1009–13.
pubmed: 27900453
Ong WL, Weerakoon M, Huang S, Paul E, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, et al. Transperineal biopsy prostate cancer detection in first biopsy and repeat biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: the Victorian Transperineal Biopsy Collaboration experience. BJU Int. 2015;116:568–76.
pubmed: 25560926
Ber Y, Segal N, Tamir S, Benjaminov O, Yakimov M, Sela S et al. A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI–US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020.
Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SA, Gardiner RA. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144:1784–91.
pubmed: 26645476
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876–92.
pubmed: 23787356
Anastasiadis E, van der Meulen J, Emberton M. Hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: a database analysis in England. Int J Urol. 2015;22:181–6.
pubmed: 25257575
Williamson DA, Barrett LK, Rogers BA, Freeman JT, Hadway P, Paterson DL. Infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: new challenges in the era of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57:267–74.
pubmed: 23532481
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–22.
pubmed: 28110982
Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Moon DA, et al. Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int. 2014;114:384–8.
pubmed: 24612341
Pepdjonovic L, Tan GH, Huang S, Mann S, Frydenberg M, Moon D, et al. Zero hospital admissions for infection after 577 transperineal prostate biopsies using single-dose cephazolin prophylaxis. World J Urol. 2017;35:1199–203.
pubmed: 27987032
Wetterauer C, Shahin O, Federer-Gsponer JR, Keller N, Wyler S, Seifert HH et al. Feasibility of freehand MRI/US cognitive fusion transperineal biopsy of the prostate in local anaesthesia as in-office procedure—experience with 400 patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020.
Grummet J, Gorin MA, Popert R, O’Brien T, Lamb AD, Hadaschik B, et al. “TREXIT 2020”: why the time to abandon transrectal prostate biopsy starts now. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:62–5.
pubmed: 31932659
pmcid: 7027966
Sheikh N, Wei C, Szewczyk-Bieda M, Campbell A, Memon S, Lang S, et al. Combined T2 and diffusion-weighted MR imaging with template prostate biopsies in men suspected with prostate cancer but negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies. World J Urol. 2017;35:213–20.
pubmed: 27236302
Davis P, Paul E, Grummet J. Current practice of prostate biopsy in Australia and New Zealand: A survey. Urol Ann. 2015;7:315–9.
pubmed: 26229317
pmcid: 4518366
Donato P, Morton A, Yaxley J, Teloken PE, Coughlin G, Esler R, et al. Improved detection and reduced biopsies: the effect of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-based triage prostate cancer pathway in a public teaching hospital. World J Urol. 2020;38:371–9.
pubmed: 31055625
Stabile A, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore CM. MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:473–87.
pubmed: 30104656
Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schroder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014;66:22–9.
pubmed: 24666839
Henderson T, Shepheard J, Sundararajan V. Quality of diagnosis and procedure coding in ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2006;44:1011–9.
pubmed: 17063133
Johansen TEB, Zahl PH, Baco E, Bartoletti R, Bonkat G, Bruyere F, et al. Antibiotic resistance, hospitalizations, and mortality related to prostate biopsy: first report from the Norwegian Patient Registry. World J Urol. 2020;38:17–26.
pubmed: 31183524
Halpern JA, Sedrakyan A, Dinerman B, Hsu WC, Mao J, Hu JC. Indications, utilization and complications following prostate biopsy: New York state analysis. J Urol. 2017;197:1020–5.
pubmed: 27856226
Shoag JE, Gaffney C, Pantuck M, Sun T, Gorin M, Schaeffer E, et al. Risk factors for infection after prostate biopsy in the United States. Urology. 2019;138:113–8.
pubmed: 31899233
Altok M, Kim B, Patel BB, Shih Y-CT, Ward JF, McRae SE, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of five prostate biopsy modalities: a platform for integrating cost into novel-platform comparative research. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:524–32.
pubmed: 29988098
Weiner AB, Manjunath A, Kirsh GM, Scott JA, Concepcion RD, Verniero J, et al. The cost of prostate biopsies and their complications: a summary of data on all medicare fee-for-service patients over 2 years. Urol Pract. 2020;7:145–51.
Tamhankar AS, El-Taji O, Vasdev N, Foley C, Popert R, Adshead J. “The clinical and financial implications of a decade of prostate biopsies in the NHS: analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data 2008–19”. BJU Int. 2020;126:133–41.
pubmed: 32232966
Gordon LG, James R, Tuffaha HW, Lowe A, Yaxley J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of multiparametric MRI with increased active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer in Australia. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;45:1304–15.
pubmed: 27726240
Patel S, Rongen JJ, Futterer JJ, Boltyenkov A, Rovers MM. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness modeling study. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1:476–83.
pubmed: 31158091
Sathianathen NJ, Butaney M, Bongiorno C, Konety BR, Bolton DM, Lawrentschuk N. Accuracy of the magnetic resonance imaging pathway in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019;22:39–48.
pubmed: 30108376
Zimmerman ME, Meyer AR, Carter HB, Allaf ME, Gorin MA. In-office transperineal prostate biopsy using biplanar ultrasound guidance: a step-by-step guide. Urology. 2019;133:247.
pubmed: 31374287
Kum F, Elhage O, Maliyil J, Wong K, Faure Walker N, Kulkarni M, et al. Initial outcomes of local anaesthetic freehand transperineal prostate biopsies in the outpatient setting. BJU Int. 2020;125:244–52.
pubmed: 30431694
Bass EJ, Donaldson IA, Freeman A, Jameson C, Punwani S, Moore C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20:311–7.
pubmed: 28485391
Donato P, Morton A, Yaxley J, Ranasinghe S, Teloken PE, Kyle S, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT better characterises localised prostate cancer after MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy: Is (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT guided biopsy the future? Eur J Nucl Med Mol imaging. 2020;47:1843–51.
pubmed: 31912257
Turnidge JD, Meleady KT. Antimicrobial use and resistance in Australia (AURA) surveillance system: coordinating national data on antimicrobial use and resistance for Australia. Aust Health Rev. 2018;42:272–6.
pubmed: 28637576
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.
pubmed: 28363690
Roberts MJ, Williamson DA, Hadway P, Doi SA, Gardiner RA, Paterson DL. Baseline prevalence of antimicrobial resistance and subsequent infection following prostate biopsy using empirical or altered prophylaxis: A bias-adjusted meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014;43:301–9.
pubmed: 24630305
Scott S, Harris PN, Williamson DA, Liss MA, Doi SAR, Roberts MJ. The effectiveness of targeted relative to empiric prophylaxis on infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36:1007–17.
pubmed: 29453690
Zowawi HM, Harris PN, Roberts MJ, Tambyah PA, Schembri MA, Pezzani MD, et al. The emerging threat of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria in urology. Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12:570–84.
pubmed: 26334085
Berry B, Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Cowling TE, Aggarwal A, et al. Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study. BJU Int. 2020;126:97–103.
pubmed: 32124525
Waites KB, Canupp KC, DeVivo MJ. Microbiology of the urethra and perineum and its relationship to bacteriuria in community-residing men with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2004;27:448–52.
pubmed: 15648799
Zhanel GG, Zhanel MA, Karlowsky JA. Oral fosfomycin for the treatment of acute and chronic bacterial prostatitis caused by multidrug-resistant escherichia coli. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2018;2018:1404813.
pubmed: 29666664
pmcid: 5831921
Avent ML, Rogers BA, Cheng AC, Athan E, Francis JR, Roberts MJ, et al. Fosfomycin: what was old is new again. Intern Med J. 2018;48:1425–9.
pubmed: 30517987
Roberts MJ, Scott S, Harris PN, Naber K, Wagenlehner FME, Doi SAR. Comparison of fosfomycin against fluoroquinolones for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis: an individual patient-data meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36:323–30.
pubmed: 29288398