Alexa R Meyer1, Gregory A Joice1, Zeyad R Schwen1, Alan W Partin1, Mohamad E Allaf1, Michael A Gorin2. 1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 2. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: mgorin1@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe our procedural technique and initial outcomes performing in-office transperineal prostate biopsies using the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System (Perineologic, Cumberland, MD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, we retrospectively reviewed the records of men who underwent an in-office transperineal prostate biopsy using the PrecisionPoint device. Records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, biopsy results, and postbiopsy complications. RESULTS: Between January 4, 2017 and August 23, 2017, 43 men underwent an in-office transperineal prostate biopsy using the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System. Patients had a median serum prostate specific antigen level of 6.1 ng/mL (range 0.8-32.9). Of the 43 biopsies, 12 (27.9%) were performed for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer and 31 (72.1%) were performed for cancer screening. Overall, 21 (48.8%) men were found to have prostate cancer. Among those on active surveillance, cancer was detected in 8 of 12 (66.7%) patients, with 2 of 12 (16.7%) found to have Gleason ≥3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer. Additionally, cancer was detected in 13 of 31 (41.9%) patients undergoing a biopsy for prostate cancer screening, with 5 (16.1%) found to have Gleason ≥3 + 4 = 7 disease. In total, 3 (7.0%) patients experienced a postbiopsy complication: 2 (4.7%) with urinary retention and 1 (2.3%) with gross hematuria requiring catheterization. No patient experienced an infectious complication despite omission of periprocedural antibiotics in all cases. CONCLUSION: The PrecisionPoint device allowed for the successful performance of in-office transperineal prostate biopsies under local anesthesia without the need for periprocedural antibiotics. We observed an acceptable cancer detection rate with no infectious complications.
OBJECTIVE: To describe our procedural technique and initial outcomes performing in-office transperineal prostate biopsies using the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System (Perineologic, Cumberland, MD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, we retrospectively reviewed the records of men who underwent an in-office transperineal prostate biopsy using the PrecisionPoint device. Records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, biopsy results, and postbiopsy complications. RESULTS: Between January 4, 2017 and August 23, 2017, 43 men underwent an in-office transperineal prostate biopsy using the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System. Patients had a median serum prostate specific antigen level of 6.1 ng/mL (range 0.8-32.9). Of the 43 biopsies, 12 (27.9%) were performed for active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer and 31 (72.1%) were performed for cancer screening. Overall, 21 (48.8%) men were found to have prostate cancer. Among those on active surveillance, cancer was detected in 8 of 12 (66.7%) patients, with 2 of 12 (16.7%) found to have Gleason ≥3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer. Additionally, cancer was detected in 13 of 31 (41.9%) patients undergoing a biopsy for prostate cancer screening, with 5 (16.1%) found to have Gleason ≥3 + 4 = 7 disease. In total, 3 (7.0%) patients experienced a postbiopsy complication: 2 (4.7%) with urinary retention and 1 (2.3%) with gross hematuria requiring catheterization. No patient experienced an infectious complication despite omission of periprocedural antibiotics in all cases. CONCLUSION: The PrecisionPoint device allowed for the successful performance of in-office transperineal prostate biopsies under local anesthesia without the need for periprocedural antibiotics. We observed an acceptable cancer detection rate with no infectious complications.
Authors: Liang G Qu; Modher Al-Shawi; Tess Howard; Nathan Papa; Cedric Poyet; Brian Kelly; A J Matthew Egan; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Damien Bolton; Gregory S Jack Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Jose L Marenco Jimenez; Francesco Claps; Juan C Ramón-Borja; Juan M Mascarós Martinez; Augusto W Gutierrez; Álvaro G F Lozano; Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus; Jose L Domìnguez Escrig; Argimiro C Serra; Jose Rubio-Briones Journal: Prostate Int Date: 2020-10-17
Authors: Spyridon P Basourakos; Mark N Alshak; Patrick J Lewicki; Emily Cheng; Michael Tzeng; Antonio P DeRosa; Mathew J Allaway; Ashley E Ross; Edward M Schaeffer; Hiten D Patel; Jim C Hu; Michael A Gorin Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-01-29
Authors: Donnacha Hogan; Abbie Kanagarajah; Henry H Yao; David Wetherell; Brendan Dias; Phil Dundee; Kevin Chu; Homayoun Zargar; Helen E O'Connell Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-09-10
Authors: Michael Tzeng; Eliza Cricco-Lizza; Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Morgan Pantuck; Daniel J Margolis; Miko Yu; Jim Hu Journal: BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol Date: 2019-11-20