Literature DB >> 28485391

Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach.

E J Bass1,2, I A Donaldson1,2, A Freeman3,4, C Jameson3,4, S Punwani5,6, C Moore1,2, M Arya1,2, M Emberton1,2, H U Ahmed1,2,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite high rates of disease misclassification and sepsis, the use of transrectal biopsy remains commonplace. Transperineal mapping biopsies mitigate these problems but carry increased cost and patient burden. Local anaesthetic, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted transperineal biopsy may offer an alternative. Here, we aim to determine the feasibility, tolerability and detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer using a local anaesthetic, transperineal, MRI-targeted biopsy technique.
METHODS: Tertiary referral centre in which 181 consecutive men underwent local anaesthetic, transperineal MRI-targeted prostate biopsy (September 2014 to January 2016). A standardized local anaesthetic technique was used to obtain targeted biopsies using visual estimation with the number of targeted cores determined by each of a number of users. We assessed adverse events, patient visual analogue pain scores and detection rates of clinically significant cancer (defined by University College London (UCL) definitions one and two and separately by the presence of dominant and non-dominant Gleason pattern 4). We secondarily assessed detection of any cancer, rates of detection by MRI (Likert) score and by presenting PSA. Differences were assessed using Chi-squared tests (P<0.05).
RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one men with 243 lesions were included. There were no episodes of sepsis or re-admissions and one procedure was abandoned owing to patient discomfort. Twenty-three out of 25 (92%) men would recommend the procedure to another. Median visual analogue pain score was 1.0 (interquartile range: 0.0-2.4). A total 104/181 (57%) had UCL definition 1 disease (Gleason ⩾4+3 and/or maximum cancer length ⩾6 mm) and 129/181 (71%) had UCL definition 2 cancer (Gleason ⩾3+4 and/or maximum cancer length ⩾4 mm). Fifty-four out of 181 (30%) and 124/181 (69%) had dominant and non-dominant pattern 4 disease or greater (irrespective of cancer length). Any cancer was detected in 142/181 (78%). Significant disease was more likely in higher MRI-scoring lesions and in men with PSAs ⩾10 ng ml-1.
CONCLUSIONS: This approach to prostate biopsy is feasible, tolerable and can be performed in ambulatory settings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28485391     DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2017.13

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  20 in total

Review 1.  [Fusion biopsies for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer : Implementation, benefits, and clinical aspects].

Authors:  L Püllen; B Hadaschik; D Eberli; T H Kuru
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy under intravenous anaesthesia: a clinical, microbiological and cost analysis of 2048 cases over 11 years at a tertiary institution.

Authors:  Matthew J Roberts; Alastair Macdonald; Sachinka Ranasinghe; Harrison Bennett; Patrick E Teloken; Patrick Harris; David Paterson; Geoff Coughlin; Nigel Dunglison; Rachel Esler; Robert A Gardiner; Thomas Elliott; Louisa Gordon; John Yaxley
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 3.  Transperineal prostate biopsy: The modern gold standard to prostate cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Gernot Ortner; Eirini Tzanaki; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Udo Nagele; Theodoros Tokas
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-10-09

Review 4.  All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Authors:  Derek J Lomas; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 5.  Rationale and protocol for randomized study of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy efficacy and complications (ProBE-PC study).

Authors:  Badar M Mian; Ronald P Kaufman; Hugh A G Fisher
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 5.554

6.  Infection rate and complications after 621 transperineal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies in local anesthesia without standard antibiotic prophylaxis.

Authors:  K Günzel; A Magheli; E Baco; H Cash; S Heinrich; H Neubert; J Schlegel; M Schostak; T Henkel; P Asbach; S Hinz
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-04-18       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Prostate cancer detection rate in men undergoing transperineal template-guided saturation and targeted prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Basil Kaufmann; Karim Saba; Tobias S Schmidli; Stephanie Stutz; Leon Bissig; Anna Jelena Britschgi; Evodia Schaeren; Alexander Gu; Nicole Langenegger; Tullio Sulser; Daniel Eberli; Etienne X Keller; Thomas Hermanns; Cédric Poyet
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 4.012

8.  Improving the safety and tolerability of local anaesthetic outpatient transperineal prostate biopsies: A pilot study of the CAMbridge PROstate Biopsy (CAMPROBE) method.

Authors:  D Thurtle; L Starling; K Leonard; T Stone; V J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  J Clin Urol       Date:  2018-03-05

Review 9.  Value of systematic sampling in an mp-MRI targeted prostate biopsy strategy.

Authors:  Martin J Connor; Saiful Miah; Rajiv Jayadevan; Christopher C Khoo; David Eldred-Evans; Taimur Shah; Hashim U Ahmed; Leonard Marks
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-06

Review 10.  Current techniques of prostate biopsy: an update from past to present.

Authors:  Mohamed Essam Noureldin; Martin J Connor; Nicholas Boxall; Saiful Miah; Taimur Shah; Jochen Walz
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.