Literature DB >> 31102622

Patient Experience of Systematic Versus Fusion Prostate Biopsies.

Juho T Eineluoto1, Petrus Järvinen2, Tuomas Kilpeläinen2, Kanerva Lahdensuo2, Inari Kalalahti2, Kevin Sandeman3, Tuomas Mirtti4, Antti Rannikko5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FBx) technique has gained popularity in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics, but little is known about its effect on patient experience.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pain, discomfort and other non-infectious complications in PCa patients undergoing either systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (SBx) or FBx and patient willingness to undergo rebiopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective trial of 262 male patients, 203 of whom underwent transrectal SBx and 59 FBx at Helsinki University Hospital in 2015-2016. Patients completed two questionnaires immediately after and at 30 d after biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Patients reported pain and discomfort on a numeric rating scale (NRS; 0-10) immediately after biopsy. At 30 d, discomfort was measured on a scale ranging from 1 (no inconvenience) to 4 (maximal inconvenience). Other symptoms were reported dichotomously (yes/no) in both questionnaires. Mann-Whitney U, Pearson's χ2, and logistic regression tests were used. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: For the SBx and FBx groups the median number of cores per patient was 12 and three, respectively. At 30 d, a higher proportion of patients in the SBx group had experienced pain than in the FBx group (70/203 [34%] vs 12/59 [20%]; p=0.043), whereas there was no difference in the median discomfort scores. Hematuria was less common in the FBx group (26/59 [44%] vs 140/203 [69%]; p<0.001). Patients willing to undergo rebiopsy immediately post-biopsy reported lower median NRS (3.0 [interquartile range 2.0-5.0] vs 5.0 [4.3-6.0]; p<0.001) and discomfort scores (4.0 [2.0-6.0] vs 7.0 [5.0-8.0]; p<0.001) than those unwilling. At 30 d, less discomfort (2.0 [interquartile range 1.0-2.0] vs 2.0 [2.0-3.0]; p=0.008) and fever (6/195 [3.1%] vs 6/28 [22%]; p=0.001) were experienced by patients willing to undergo rebiopsy. The nonrandomized design was a limitation.
CONCLUSIONS: FBx is associated with less pain and hematuria than SBx during the 30-d interval after biopsy. PATIENT
SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy is associated with less pain, discomfort, and blood in the urine compared to the standard ultrasound-guided procedure. Performing MRI-targeted procedures may reduce biopsy-related complications and promote adherence to recommended repeat biopsy for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer.
Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fusion biopsy; Patient experience; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 31102622     DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol        ISSN: 2588-9311


  5 in total

1.  Assessing the need for systematic biopsies in addition to targeted biopsies according to the characteristics of the index lesion at mpMRI. Results from a large, multi-institutional database.

Authors:  Francesco Barletta; Elio Mazzone; Armando Stabile; Simone Scuderi; Giorgio Brembilla; Mario de Angelis; Giuseppe Ottone Cirulli; Vito Cucchiara; Giorgio Gandaglia; R Jeffrey Karnes; Morgan Roupret; Francesco De Cobelli; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 3.661

2.  Analyzing the learning curves of a novice and an experienced urologist for transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy.

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

3.  Does Protocol Make a Difference? Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts: A Non-protocol-based Follow-up and a Protocol-based Contemporary Follow-up.

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

Review 4.  Alternatives for MRI in Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-Review of Current Ultrasound-Based Techniques.

Authors:  Adam Gurwin; Kamil Kowalczyk; Klaudia Knecht-Gurwin; Paweł Stelmach; Łukasz Nowak; Wojciech Krajewski; Tomasz Szydełko; Bartosz Małkiewicz
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 6.575

5.  Infectious complications after transrectal MRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Inari Kalalahti; Kaisa Huotari; Andrew M Erickson; Anssi Petas; Hanna Vasarainen; Antti Rannikko
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 3.661

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.