Leonard P Bokhorst1, Inari Lepistö2, Yoshiyuki Kakehi3, Chris H Bangma1, Tom Pickles4, Riccardo Valdagni5, Arnout R Alberts1, Axel Semjonow6, Petra Strölin7, Manuel F Montesino8, Viktor Berge9, Monique J Roobol1, Antti Rannikko2. 1. Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Urology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 3. Department of Urology, Kagawa University Faculty of Medicine, Kagawa, Japan. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 5. Prostate Cancer Program and Radiation Oncology 1, Fondazione IRCSS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, Prostate Center, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany. 7. Department of Urology, Martini Klinik, Hamburg, Germany. 8. Department of Urology, Hospital Virgen del Camino, Pamplona, Spain. 9. Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the risk of serial prostate biopsies on complications in men on active surveillance (AS) and determine the effect of complications on receiving further biopsies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the global Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study, men are prospectively followed on AS and repeat prostate biopsies are scheduled at 1, 4, and 7 years after the diagnostic biopsy, or once yearly if prostate-specific antigen-doubling time is <10 years. Data on complications after biopsy, including infection, haematuria, haematospermia, and pain, were retrospectively collected for all biopsies taken during follow-up in men from several large participating centres. Generalised estimating equations were used to test predictors of infection after biopsy. Competing risk analysis was used to compare the rates of men receiving further biopsies between men with and without previous complications. RESULTS: In all, 2 184 biopsies were taken in 1 164 men. Infection was reported after 55 biopsies (2.5%), and one in five men reported any form of complication. At multivariable analysis, the number of previous biopsies was not a significant predictor of infection (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.43). The only significant predictor for infection was the type of prophylaxis used. Of all men with a complication at the diagnostic or first repeat biopsy, 21% did not have a repeat biopsy at the time a repeat biopsy was scheduled according to protocol, vs 12% for men without a previous biopsy complication. CONCLUSION: In our present cohort of men on AS, we found no evidence that repeat prostate biopsy in itself posed a risk of infection. However, complications after biopsy were not uncommon and after a complication men were less likely to have further biopsies. We should aim to safely reduce the amount of repeat biopsies in men on AS.
OBJECTIVE: To study the risk of serial prostate biopsies on complications in men on active surveillance (AS) and determine the effect of complications on receiving further biopsies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the global Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study, men are prospectively followed on AS and repeat prostate biopsies are scheduled at 1, 4, and 7 years after the diagnostic biopsy, or once yearly if prostate-specific antigen-doubling time is <10 years. Data on complications after biopsy, including infection, haematuria, haematospermia, and pain, were retrospectively collected for all biopsies taken during follow-up in men from several large participating centres. Generalised estimating equations were used to test predictors of infection after biopsy. Competing risk analysis was used to compare the rates of men receiving further biopsies between men with and without previous complications. RESULTS: In all, 2 184 biopsies were taken in 1 164 men. Infection was reported after 55 biopsies (2.5%), and one in five men reported any form of complication. At multivariable analysis, the number of previous biopsies was not a significant predictor of infection (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.43). The only significant predictor for infection was the type of prophylaxis used. Of all men with a complication at the diagnostic or first repeat biopsy, 21% did not have a repeat biopsy at the time a repeat biopsy was scheduled according to protocol, vs 12% for men without a previous biopsy complication. CONCLUSION: In our present cohort of men on AS, we found no evidence that repeat prostate biopsy in itself posed a risk of infection. However, complications after biopsy were not uncommon and after a complication men were less likely to have further biopsies. We should aim to safely reduce the amount of repeat biopsies in men on AS.
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Stacy Loeb; Jonathan I Epstein; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Edward M Schaeffer Journal: Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book Date: 2016
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
Authors: Juho T Eineluoto; Petrus Järvinen; Anu Kenttämies; Tuomas P Kilpeläinen; Hanna Vasarainen; Kevin Sandeman; Andrew Erickson; Tuomas Mirtti; Antti Rannikko Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kevin Michael Gallagher; Edward Christopher; Andrew James Cameron; Scott Little; Alasdair Innes; Gill Davis; Julian Keanie; Prasad Bollina; Alan McNeill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Inari Kalalahti; Hanna Vasarainen; Andrew M Erickson; Arttu Siipola; Kari A O Tikkinen; Antti Rannikko Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-10-28