Literature DB >> 23273070

The learning curve of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: implications for training programs.

Amine Benchikh El Fegoun1, Rabii El Atat, Laurence Choudat, Elie El Helou, Jean-François Hermieu, Sébastien Dominique, Vincent Hupertan, Vincent Ravery.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of specimens obtained from prostate biopsies performed by urology residents and evaluate the number of procedures required to perform high-quality transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2009, 770 patients underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsies in our academic center. During the 6 semesters of this period, 24 residents (4 per semester) performed 1 session of 5.6±1.5 procedures each month for a total of 33.6±9 procedures during the study. The first session was performed with a senior urologist. Prostate cancer detection rate and standards of quality (average length of prostatic core biopsy specimens and absence of prostatic tissue) were retrospectively studied between the beginning and the end of each semester.
RESULTS: A total of 12,760 biopsy cores were performed for 770 procedures. Mean patient age (64.5±6.1 years), and median prostate-specific antigen (8.7±3.7 ng/mL) were comparable between the study periods. The average length of biopsy cores significantly improved (+10%) from the first (12±2.7 mm) to the last month (13.2±2.1 mm) with a plateau after 12 procedures. Overall, cancer detection rate was 47% and was stable during the semester (41.3% the first month vs 44.1% the last month; P=.39). On univariate and multivariate analysis the mean length of biopsy specimens was associated with the number of procedures (P<.001) and the number of cores performed (P<.001).
CONCLUSION: Twelve procedures are necessary to perform high-quality TRUS-guided prostate biopsies without compromising prostate cancer detection. In current training programs, we strongly recommend that residents have direct supervision for a minimum of 12 cases before they are allowed to perform TRUS-guided biopsies with indirect supervision.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23273070     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.084

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  12 in total

1.  Association of training level and outcome of software-based image fusion-guided targeted prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Niklas Westhoff; Henning Haumann; Maximilian Christian Kriegmair; Jost von Hardenberg; Johannes Budjan; Stefan Porubsky; Maurice Stephan Michel; Patrick Honeck; Manuel Ritter
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy performed by supervised junior and senior residents is safe and does not result in inferior outcomes.

Authors:  Jesse F Wang; Margaret A Knoedler; Kimberly A Maciolek; Natasza M Posielski; Vania Lopez; Wade A Bushman; Sara L Best; Dan R Gralnek; Kyle A Richards
Journal:  Am J Clin Exp Urol       Date:  2021-02-15

3.  The association of level of practical experience in transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy with its diagnostic outcome.

Authors:  S Tadtayev; A Hussein; L Carpenter; N Vasdev; G Boustead
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  Gleason underestimation is predicted by prostate biopsy core length.

Authors:  Leonardo O Reis; Brunno C F Sanches; Gustavo Borges de Mendonça; Daniel M Silva; Tiago Aguiar; Ocivaldo P Menezes; Athanase Billis
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  3D Navigo™ versus TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Maudy Gayet; Anouk van der Aa; Peter Schmitz; Harrie P Beerlage; Bart Ph Schrier; Peter F A Mulders; Massimo Mischi; Hessel Wijkstra
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-03-17

7.  Editorial Comment: Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy.

Authors:  Andre Luiz Lima Diniz
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2020 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

8.  Resident Experience Associated with Lung Biopsy Outcomes: A Cross-Sectional Study of Diagnostic Radiology Residents. Does the Level of Training Matter?

Authors:  Ken E Schmanke; Rosalee E Zackula; Zachary A Unruh; Wesley A Burdiek; Jesse J Trent; Kamran M Ali
Journal:  Kans J Med       Date:  2020-09-11

9.  Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates of various prostate biopsy methods for patients with prostate-specific antigen levels of <10.0 ng/mL in real-world practice.

Authors:  Kyung Tak Oh; Kyo Chul Koo; Byung Ha Chung; Kwang Suk Lee
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2019-11-28

10.  The urologist's learning curve of "in-bore" magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Zohar A Dotan; Orith Portnoy; Barak Rosenzweig; Tomer Drori; Orit Raz; Gil Goldinger; Gadi Shlomai; Dorit E Zilberman; Moshe Shechtman; Jacob Ramon
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.