Matthew J Roberts1,2,3, Alastair Macdonald4, Sachinka Ranasinghe5,6,7, Harrison Bennett6,7, Patrick E Teloken4, Patrick Harris8,6,7, David Paterson8,9, Geoff Coughlin4, Nigel Dunglison4, Rachel Esler4, Robert A Gardiner4,8,10,11, Thomas Elliott12, Louisa Gordon12, John Yaxley4,6. 1. Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. m.roberts2@uq.edu.au. 2. The University of Queensland, Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. m.roberts2@uq.edu.au. 3. Department of Urology, Redcliffe Hospital, Redcliffe, QLD, Australia. m.roberts2@uq.edu.au. 4. Department of Urology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 5. Department of Urology, Redcliffe Hospital, Redcliffe, QLD, Australia. 6. The University of Queensland, Faculty of Medicine, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 7. Pathology Queensland, Department of Microbiology, Central Laboratory, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 8. The University of Queensland, Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 9. Infectious Diseases Unit, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 10. Griffith University, Mount Gravatt, QLD, Australia. 11. Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia. 12. Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transrectal (TR) and transperineal (TP) approaches for prostate biopsy have different morbidity profiles. Our institution transitioned to a preference for multiparametric MRI-based triage and TP biopsy since 2014. The aim of this study was to compare clinical, microbiological and health economic outcomes between TR and TP prostate biopsy. METHODS: A consecutive cohort study considered prostate biopsies over an 11 year period. Hospital presentations across the region within 30 days of biopsy were analysed for details and subsequent outcomes according to biopsy approach. Cost for each encounter (routine and unplanned) were analysed and generalised linear models applied, as well as cost implications for inclusion of mpMRI-based triage and TP biopsy preference. RESULTS: In total, 2048 prostate biopsies were performed. Similar re-presentation rates per occurred for each biopsy approach (90 patients, TR 4.8%, TP 3.8%, p = 0.29), with 23 patients presenting more than once (119 total presentations). Presentations after TR biopsy were more likely to be of infectious aetiology (TR 2.92%, TP 0.26% de novo, p < 0.001) and result in hospital admission (TR 43/49, 93.4%; TP 14/24, 58.3%; p = 0.007) for similar rates of urinary retention (TR 2.76% vs TP 3.63%, p = 1). The mean overall cost (biopsy and re-presentations) was higher for the TP group (p < 0.001), adjusted for year and age, but reduced over time and was similar for patients who re-presented (p = 0.98). Incorporation of mpMRI (with subsequently avoided biopsies), TP biopsy and re-presentations resulted in AU$783.27 saving per biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: TR biopsy resulted in more infectious complications and hospital admissions than TP biopsy for similar rates of re-presentation and urinary retention. TP biopsy costs reduced over time and use in conjunction with mpMRI provides an overall cost saving. Routine TP biopsy is safe and feasible, with further cost savings expected with other approaches (local anaesthetic) under investigation.
BACKGROUND: Transrectal (TR) and transperineal (TP) approaches for prostate biopsy have different morbidity profiles. Our institution transitioned to a preference for multiparametric MRI-based triage and TP biopsy since 2014. The aim of this study was to compare clinical, microbiological and health economic outcomes between TR and TP prostate biopsy. METHODS: A consecutive cohort study considered prostate biopsies over an 11 year period. Hospital presentations across the region within 30 days of biopsy were analysed for details and subsequent outcomes according to biopsy approach. Cost for each encounter (routine and unplanned) were analysed and generalised linear models applied, as well as cost implications for inclusion of mpMRI-based triage and TP biopsy preference. RESULTS: In total, 2048 prostate biopsies were performed. Similar re-presentation rates per occurred for each biopsy approach (90 patients, TR 4.8%, TP 3.8%, p = 0.29), with 23 patients presenting more than once (119 total presentations). Presentations after TR biopsy were more likely to be of infectious aetiology (TR 2.92%, TP 0.26% de novo, p < 0.001) and result in hospital admission (TR 43/49, 93.4%; TP 14/24, 58.3%; p = 0.007) for similar rates of urinary retention (TR 2.76% vs TP 3.63%, p = 1). The mean overall cost (biopsy and re-presentations) was higher for the TP group (p < 0.001), adjusted for year and age, but reduced over time and was similar for patients who re-presented (p = 0.98). Incorporation of mpMRI (with subsequently avoided biopsies), TP biopsy and re-presentations resulted in AU$783.27 saving per biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: TR biopsy resulted in more infectious complications and hospital admissions than TP biopsy for similar rates of re-presentation and urinary retention. TP biopsy costs reduced over time and use in conjunction with mpMRI provides an overall cost saving. Routine TP biopsy is safe and feasible, with further cost savings expected with other approaches (local anaesthetic) under investigation.
Authors: Matthew J Roberts; Harrison Y Bennett; Patrick N Harris; Michael Holmes; Jeremy Grummet; Kurt Naber; Florian M E Wagenlehner Journal: Urology Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Deborah A Williamson; Lucinda K Barrett; Benjamin A Rogers; Joshua T Freeman; Paul Hadway; David L Paterson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Florian M E Wagenlehner; Edgar van Oostrum; Peter Tenke; Zafer Tandogdu; Mete Çek; Magnus Grabe; Björn Wullt; Robert Pickard; Kurt G Naber; Adrian Pilatz; Wolfgang Weidner; Truls E Bjerklund-Johansen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Gregory S Merrick; Robert W Galbreath; Abbey Bennett; Wayne M Butler; Edward Amamovich Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
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: 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