Daniel Halstuch1, Jack Baniel2,3,4, David Lifshitz2,3, Sivan Sela2, Yaara Ber2, David Margel2,3,4. 1. Department of Urology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. danielhalstuch@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. 3. Division of Surgery, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 4. Urology clinic, Ramat Aviv Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MRI-US fusion prostate biopsies are becoming a common procedure to diagnose prostate cancer. There is a paucity of information regarding the learning curve for fusion biopsies. We aim to study the amount of experience needed to be both accurate and time-efficient in this procedure. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on all MRI-US fusion biopsies performed from April 2014 to August 2017. We used two parameters to define the learning curve. Process Measurement (efficiency) was measured by time from the beginning of anesthesia to end of procedure. Outcome Measurement (accuracy) was measured by cancer detection rate for PI-RAD 3 lesions. The end of the learning curve was defined graphically and mathematically. We performed a separate analysis for transrectal and transperineal biopsies. RESULTS: We completed 779 fusion biopsies (523 transrectal, 256 transperineal). Patients median age was 66 years (IQR 61-70) and median PSA 6.95 ng/ml (IQR 4.2-10.6). Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 385 (49%). Process Measurement-Procedure time decreased from 45 min in the first transrectal fusion biopsy to 15 min after 109 biopsies and remained stable (p < 0.0001). Time decreased from 55 min in the first transperineal biopsy to 18 min after 124 biopsies (p < 0.0001). Outcome Measurement-In transrectal fusion-biopsies detection rate for PI-RADS 3 lesions increased from 35 to 50% after 104 biopsies. In transperineal fusion-biopsies, detection rate increased from 40 to 55% after 119 cases for PI-RADS 3 lesions. CONCLUSIONS: We measured the learning curve of fusion biopsies graphically and mathematically. We demonstrated that proficiency occurs after 110 transrectal and 125 transperineal fusion-biopsies.
BACKGROUND: MRI-US fusion prostate biopsies are becoming a common procedure to diagnose prostate cancer. There is a paucity of information regarding the learning curve for fusion biopsies. We aim to study the amount of experience needed to be both accurate and time-efficient in this procedure. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on all MRI-US fusion biopsies performed from April 2014 to August 2017. We used two parameters to define the learning curve. Process Measurement (efficiency) was measured by time from the beginning of anesthesia to end of procedure. Outcome Measurement (accuracy) was measured by cancer detection rate for PI-RAD 3 lesions. The end of the learning curve was defined graphically and mathematically. We performed a separate analysis for transrectal and transperineal biopsies. RESULTS: We completed 779 fusion biopsies (523 transrectal, 256 transperineal). Patients median age was 66 years (IQR 61-70) and median PSA 6.95 ng/ml (IQR 4.2-10.6). Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 385 (49%). Process Measurement-Procedure time decreased from 45 min in the first transrectal fusion biopsy to 15 min after 109 biopsies and remained stable (p < 0.0001). Time decreased from 55 min in the first transperineal biopsy to 18 min after 124 biopsies (p < 0.0001). Outcome Measurement-In transrectal fusion-biopsies detection rate for PI-RADS 3 lesions increased from 35 to 50% after 104 biopsies. In transperineal fusion-biopsies, detection rate increased from 40 to 55% after 119 cases for PI-RADS 3 lesions. CONCLUSIONS: We measured the learning curve of fusion biopsies graphically and mathematically. We demonstrated that proficiency occurs after 110 transrectal and 125 transperineal fusion-biopsies.
Authors: Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Mitch Hayes; Solange Bassale; Nicholas H Chakiryan; Luc Boileau; Jacob Grassauer; Matthew Wagner; Bryan Foster; Fergus Coakley; Sudhir Isharwal; Christopher L Amling; Jen-Jane Liu Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2022-06-05
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Charles Van Praet; Iulia Andras; Pierre Kadula; Razvan Ognean; Maximilian Buzoianu; Daniel Leucuta; Cosmin Caraiani; Attila Tamas-Szora; Karel Decaestecker; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2021-05
Authors: Magdalena Görtz; Joanne Nyaboe Nyarangi-Dix; Lars Pursche; Viktoria Schütz; Philipp Reimold; Constantin Schwab; Albrecht Stenzinger; Holger Sültmann; Stefan Duensing; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; David Bonekamp; Markus Hohenfellner; Jan Philipp Radtke Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 6.639
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