Transitioning from transrectal to transperineal prostate biopsy using a freehand cognitive approach.

biopsy complications biopsy infections cognitive biopsies prostate biopsy transperineal transrectal

Journal

BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 Nov 2023
Historique:
pubmed: 27 11 2023
medline: 27 11 2023
entrez: 27 11 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To report a single-centre experience of a complete transition from transrectal (TR) to transperineal (TP) prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia using a freehand cognitive coaxial approach and without use of antibiotic prophylaxis. Analysis was performed of a prospective database of patients undergoing prostate biopsy performed by four surgeons between 1 June 2018 and 31 May 2022. Outcomes of interest were complications, cancer detection rate, inter-operator reliability, and tolerability. Overall, 1915 patients underwent 2337 separate prostate biopsy sessions. Only 2.4% patients in the TP group received antibiotic prophylaxis, while 100% received antibiotics in the TR group. The complication rate was significantly lower in the TP group compared to the TR group (0.3% vs 5.0%, P < 0.001). In contrast to the TR group, there were no cases of urosepsis or admissions to intensive care in the TP group. The total cancer detection rate by TP biopsy was 70% and the overall pathology detection rate was 88.4%. There was no difference in cancer or pathology detection between operators. A stable level of cancer detection was reached early on for both Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 4 and 5 lesions. All cases performed were performed successfully without need for early termination. Implementing a complete transition from TR to TP biopsy can result in a significant reduction in complications and hospital re-admissions. A cognitive freehand coaxial technique is well tolerated by patients and achieves a high cancer detection rate.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38009392
doi: 10.1111/bju.16237
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.

Références

Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SAR, Gardiner RA. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect 2016; 144: 1784-1791
Forsvall A, Jönsson H, Wagenius M, Bratt O, Linder A. Rate and characteristics of infection after transrectal prostate biopsy: a retrospective observational study. Scand J Urol 2021; 55: 317-323
Holm-Larsen T. The economic impact of nocturia. NeurourolUrodyn 2014; 33(Suppl 1): S10-S14
Professionals SO. Uroweb. EAU guidelines: prostate cancer. Available at: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#6 Accessed October 2021
Helsedirektoratet [Internet]. Urologisk kirurgi. Available at: https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/antibiotika-i-sykehus/antibiotikaprofylakse-ved-kirurgi/urologisk-kirurgi Accessed February 2023
Dimmen M, Vlatkovic L, Hole KH, Nesland JM, Brennhovd B, Axcrona K. Transperineal prostate biopsy detects significant cancer in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and previous negative transrectal biopsies. BJU Int 2012; 110(2 Pt 2): E69-E75
Wetterauer C, Shahin O, Federer-Gsponer JR 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; 23: 429-434
Thurtle D, Starling L, Leonard K, Stone T, Gnanapragasam VJ. Improving the safety and tolerability of local anaesthetic outpatient transperineal prostate biopsies: a pilot study of the CAMbridge PROstate biopsy (CAMPROBE) method. J Clin Urol 2018; 11: 192-199
Gorin MA, Meyer AR, Zimmerman M et al. Transperineal prostate biopsy with cognitive magnetic resonance imaging/biplanar ultrasound fusion: description of technique and early results. World J Urol 2020; 38: 1943-1949
Watts KL, Frechette L, Muller B et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cognitive vs. image-guided fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2020; 38: 734.e19-25
Pirola GM, Castellani D, Orecchia L et al. Transperineal US-MRI fusion-guided biopsy for the detection of clinical significant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cognitive and software-assisted technique. Cancer 2023; 15: 3443
Ahmed HU, Bosaily AES, Brown LC et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet 2017; 389: 815-822
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767-1777
Chen CS, Wang SS, Li JR et al. PSA density as a better predictor of prostate cancer than percent-free PSA in a repeat biopsy. J Chin Med Assoc JCMA 2011; 74: 552-555
Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS™ for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol 2017; 198: 575-582
Nordström T, Akre O, Aly M, Grönberg H, Eklund M. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2018; 21: 57-63
Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 343-351
Khoo CC, Eldred-Evans D, Peters M et al. A comparison of prostate cancer detection between visual estimation (cognitive registration) and image fusion (software registration) targeted transperineal prostate biopsy. J Urol 2021; 205: 1075-1081
Hamid S, Donaldson IA, Hu Y et al. The SmartTarget biopsy trial: a prospective, within-person randomised, blinded trial comparing the accuracy of visual-registration and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound image-fusion targeted biopsies for prostate cancer risk stratification. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 733-740
Wegelin O, Exterkate L, Van Der Leest M et al. The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 582-590
Jacewicz M, Günzel K, Rud E et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no antibiotic prophylaxis in transperineal prostate biopsies (NORAPP): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2022; 22: 1465-1471
Günzel K, Magheli A, Baco E et al. Infection rate and complications after 621 transperineal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies in local anesthesia without standard antibiotic prophylaxis. World J Urol 2021; 39: 3861-3866
Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 809-815
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: 149-156
Lopez JF, Campbell A, Omer A et al. Local anaesthetic transperineal (LATP) prostate biopsy using a probe-mounted transperineal access system: a multicentre prospective outcome analysis. BJU Int 2021; 128: 311-318
Marra G, Zhuang J, Beltrami M et al. Transperineal freehand multiparametric MRI fusion targeted biopsies under local anaesthesia for prostate cancer diagnosis: a multicentre prospective study of 1014 cases. BJU Int 2021; 127: 122-130
Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S et al. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: experience with 1,287 patients. Prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol 2019; 201: 1121-1126

Auteurs

Alfred Honoré (A)

Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Christian Arvei Moen (CA)

Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

Patrick Juliebø-Jones (P)

Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Lars Anders Rokne Reisaeter (LAR)

Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

Karsten Gravdal (K)

Department of Pathology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

Adeel Asghar Chaudhry (AA)

Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

Ravi Rawal (R)

Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

Andrine Sandøy (A)

Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.

Christian Beisland (C)

Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

Classifications MeSH