F Lista1, C Redondo1, E Meilán1, A García-Tello1, F Ramón de Fata1, J C Angulo2. 1. Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Departamento Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Laureate International Universities, Madrid, España. 2. Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Departamento Clínico, Facultad de Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Laureate International Universities, Madrid, España. Electronic address: javier.angulo@salud.madrid.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Prostate biopsy is the standardized diagnostic method for prostate cancer. However, although there is not a standardized protocol, there are recommendations in order to reduce the incidence of complications. The objective of the present work is to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prostate biopsy by comparing two antibiotic regimes: two doses of fosfomycin-trometamol 3g (FMT) every 48 hours with 10 doses of oral ciprofloxacin 500 mg every 12 hours during 5 days. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized prospective study was performed with 671 patients who had undergone to walking transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Patients of group A (n=312) were treated with ciprofloxacin, and patients of group B (n=359) with FMT. Efficacy and tolerability of two prophylactic regimes were compared. Urine culture was carried out at 2 weeks after biopsy. Initially, patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria were not treated with antibiotics; urine culture was repeated after 1 month, persistent bacteriuria was treated according to antibiogram. RESULTS: No differences between groups were found in age (P=.78), cancer presence (P=.9) or number of biopsy cylinders (P=.93). The mean number of cores obtained was 11.3 ± 3.25 (range 6-20). Digestive intolerance was observed for 9 patients (2.9%) of group A and 10 patients (2.8%) in group B. One patient (.3%) of group A showed severe allergic reaction. In total, 167 patients (24.6%) had complications: 16 (2.4%) fever, 47 (6.9%) hemospermia, 81 (11.9%) hematuria, 7 (1%) rectal bleeding and 16 (2.4%) urinary retention. No statistically differences between groups were observed (27.6% vs. 22.6%; P=.17). However, hemospermia was more frequent in group A (9.9% vs. 4.5%; P=.006). Bacteriuria after biopsy was detected in 44 patients (6.6%), being more frequent in group B patients (4.2% vs. 8.6%; P=.02) although a higher number of second treatment cycles were not needed (53.9% vs. 29%; P=.17). The likelihood of resistance to ciprofloxacin in patients with bacteriuria in A was greater than that of FMT in B (69.2% vs. 41.9%; P=.0004). CONCLUSIONS:Antibiotic prophylaxis with FMT (2 doses of 3g) in prostate biopsy is an alternative as effective and safe as ciprofloxacin (10 doses of 500 mg), which carries lower rate of resistance. According to our experience, this drug is a safe, well-tolerated, and easily manageable prophylactic option, facilitating patient compliance. More prospective multicenter studies are necessary to confirm these findings.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Prostate biopsy is the standardized diagnostic method for prostate cancer. However, although there is not a standardized protocol, there are recommendations in order to reduce the incidence of complications. The objective of the present work is to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prostate biopsy by comparing two antibiotic regimes: two doses of fosfomycin-trometamol 3g (FMT) every 48 hours with 10 doses of oral ciprofloxacin 500 mg every 12 hours during 5 days. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized prospective study was performed with 671 patients who had undergone to walking transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Patients of group A (n=312) were treated with ciprofloxacin, and patients of group B (n=359) with FMT. Efficacy and tolerability of two prophylactic regimes were compared. Urine culture was carried out at 2 weeks after biopsy. Initially, patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria were not treated with antibiotics; urine culture was repeated after 1 month, persistent bacteriuria was treated according to antibiogram. RESULTS: No differences between groups were found in age (P=.78), cancer presence (P=.9) or number of biopsy cylinders (P=.93). The mean number of cores obtained was 11.3 ± 3.25 (range 6-20). Digestive intolerance was observed for 9 patients (2.9%) of group A and 10 patients (2.8%) in group B. One patient (.3%) of group A showed severe allergic reaction. In total, 167 patients (24.6%) had complications: 16 (2.4%) fever, 47 (6.9%) hemospermia, 81 (11.9%) hematuria, 7 (1%) rectal bleeding and 16 (2.4%) urinary retention. No statistically differences between groups were observed (27.6% vs. 22.6%; P=.17). However, hemospermia was more frequent in group A (9.9% vs. 4.5%; P=.006). Bacteriuria after biopsy was detected in 44 patients (6.6%), being more frequent in group B patients (4.2% vs. 8.6%; P=.02) although a higher number of second treatment cycles were not needed (53.9% vs. 29%; P=.17). The likelihood of resistance to ciprofloxacin in patients with bacteriuria in A was greater than that of FMT in B (69.2% vs. 41.9%; P=.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis with FMT (2 doses of 3g) in prostate biopsy is an alternative as effective and safe as ciprofloxacin (10 doses of 500 mg), which carries lower rate of resistance. According to our experience, this drug is a safe, well-tolerated, and easily manageable prophylactic option, facilitating patient compliance. More prospective multicenter studies are necessary to confirm these findings.
Authors: Hosam M Zowawi; Patrick N A Harris; Matthew J Roberts; Paul A Tambyah; Mark A Schembri; M Diletta Pezzani; Deborah A Williamson; David L Paterson Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Veronika L Tchesnokova; Linda L Ottley; Kyoko Sakamoto; Joshua Fierer; Evgeni Sokurenko; Michael A Liss Journal: Urology Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Matthew E Falagas; Evridiki K Vouloumanou; George Samonis; Konstantinos Z Vardakas Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: K Lahdensuo; A Rannikko; V-J Anttila; A Erickson; A Pätäri-Sampo; M Rautio; H Santti; E Tarkka; M Vaara; K Huotari Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 5.554