Literature DB >> 31793867

Patient-reported pain, discomfort, and anxiety during magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy.

Gregory T Chesnut1, Piotr Zareba2, Daniel D Sjoberg3, Maha Mamoor1, Sigrid Carlsson1,3,4, Taehyoung Lee1, Jonathan Fainberg1, Emily Vertosick3, Michael Manasia1, Mary Schoen1, Behfar Ehdaie1,3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The addition of targeted prostate biopsy to systemic biopsy impacts patient experience. We examined patient-reported pain, discomfort, anxiety, and tolerability among men undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy in addition to transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy compared to those undergoing systematic biopsy alone.
METHODS: All patients underwent transrectal systematic 14-core biopsies. Patients with regions of interest on MRI underwent additional targeted biopsies. All patients received equivalent periprostatic nerve block. Four single-item, standard, 11-point numerical rating scales evaluating pain, discomfort, anxiety, and tolerability were completed immediately after biopsy. Differences in means were compared using t-tests. Correlation between rated domains was tested using Spearman's correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: Of 273 consecutive patients, 195 (71%) underwent targeted biopsy and 188 (69%) had undergone prior biopsy. In all men, the median score for pain and tolerability was 3, while the median score for discomfort and anxiety was 4. Pain was rated at 7 or above by 15% of patients. Moderate correlation between pain, discomfort, anxiety, and tolerability of repeat biopsy was observed (Spearman's ρ between 0.48 and 0.76). Compared to patients undergoing systematic biopsy alone, men who received both targeted and systematic biopsies reported higher anxiety scores (difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-2.0; p=0.004) and discomfort (difference 1.0; 95% CI 0.3-1.7; p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing targeted and systematic biopsies report more discomfort and anxiety than patients undergoing systematic biopsies alone. Absolute differences are small, and patients are willing to undergo repeat biopsy if advised. Interventions to reduce biopsy-related anxiety are needed.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31793867      PMCID: PMC7197965          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  45 in total

Review 1.  Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Authors:  Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; John T Farrar; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Robert D Kerns; Gerold Stucki; Robert R Allen; Nicholas Bellamy; Daniel B Carr; Julie Chandler; Penney Cowan; Raymond Dionne; Bradley S Galer; Sharon Hertz; Alejandro R Jadad; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Susan Martin; Cynthia G McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Patrick McGrath; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; Wendye Robbins; James P Robinson; Margaret Rothman; Mike A Royal; Lee Simon; Joseph W Stauffer; Wendy Stein; Jane Tollett; Joachim Wernicke; James Witter
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 6.961

2.  Local anesthetic reduces pain associated with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lori Hergan; Carol Kashefi; J Kellogg Parsons
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Alexandre Fourcade; Charlotte Payrard; Valentin Tissot; Marie-Aimée Perrouin-Verbe; Nicolas Demany; Sophie Serey-Effeil; Pierre Callerot; Jean-Baptiste Coquet; Laurent Doucet; Charles Deruelle; Vincent Joulin; Michel Nonent; Georges Fournier; Antoine Valeri
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 1.612

4.  Local anesthesia for prostate biopsy by periprostatic lidocaine injection: a double-blind placebo controlled study.

Authors:  Dan Leibovici; Amnon Zisman; Yoram I Siegel; Avishay Sella; Judy Kleinmann; Arie Lindner
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Acceptability and complications of prostate biopsy in population-based PSA screening versus routine clinical practice: a prospective, controlled study.

Authors:  Tuukka Mkinen; Anssi Auvinen; Matti Hakama; Ulf-H åkan Stenman; Teuvo L J Tammela
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Pain and morbidity of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial of 6 versus 12 cores.

Authors:  C K Naughton; D K Ornstein; D S Smith; W J Catalona
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Jurgen J Fütterer; Alberto Briganti; Pieter De Visschere; Mark Emberton; Gianluca Giannarini; Alex Kirkham; Samir S Taneja; Harriet Thoeny; Geert Villeirs; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-02-02       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Assessment of Discomfort and Pain in Patients Undergoing Fusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided vs TRUS-guided Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Dennis Robins; Michael Lipsky; Arindam RoyChoudry; Sven Wenske
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 9.  Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Measurement of plasma catecholamine concentrations. An assessment of anxiety.

Authors:  D Fell; D R Derbyshire; C J Maile; I M Larsson; R Ellis; K J Achola; G Smith
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 9.166

View more
  5 in total

1.  Efficacy of additional periprostatic apex nerve block on pain in each of 12 transrectal prostate core biopsies: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Jeong Woo Yoo; Kyo Chul Koo; Byung Ha Chung; Kwang Suk Lee
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-09-16       Impact factor: 2.264

2.  Pain control according to the periprostatic nerve block site in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal targeted prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Jeong Woo Yoo; Kyo Chul Koo; Byung Ha Chung; Kwang Suk Lee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Prospective analysis of pain expectancy and experience during MR-fusion prostate biopsy: does reality match patients' expectancy?

Authors:  Philipp Krausewitz; Helene Schmeller; Julian Luetkens; Darius Dabir; Jörg Ellinger; Manuel Ritter; Rupert Conrad
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-07-14       Impact factor: 3.661

4.  Editorial Comment: Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy.

Authors:  Andre Luiz Lima Diniz
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2020 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

5.  Effect of Prolonged Duration of Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy of the Prostate and Pre-Procedure Anxiety on Pain in Patients without Anesthesia.

Authors:  Yasushi Nakai; Nobumichi Tanaka; Toshihiko Matsubara; Satoshi Anai; Makito Miyake; Shunta Hori; Tomomi Fujii; Chiho Ohbayashi; Kiyohide Fujimoto
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2021-03-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.