K Günzel1, A Magheli2, E Baco3, H Cash4, S Heinrich2, H Neubert2, J Schlegel2, M Schostak4, T Henkel2, P Asbach5, S Hinz2. 1. Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban Berlin, Dieffenbachstraße 1, 10967, Berlin, Germany. Karsten.guenzel2@vivantes.de. 2. Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban Berlin, Dieffenbachstraße 1, 10967, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the post biopsy infection rate, feasibility and prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate (CDR) by performing transperineal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy of the prostate (TPBx) under local anesthesia (LA) without antibiotic prophylaxis (AP). METHODS: We prospectively screened 766 men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI, an elevated PSA level or a suspect digital examination undergoing MRI-TRUS-TPBx in LA, from May 2019 to July 2020. Patients with the need for antibiotic prophylaxis or without a PI-RADS target lesion were excluded from final analyses. We reported CDR, perioperative pain (0-10) and postoperative complications. PCa with an ISUP grade ≥ 2 was classified as clinically significant PCa (csPCa). RESULTS: We included 621 patients with a median age of 68 years (IQR 62-74), a PSA of 6.43 ng/mL (IQR 4.72-9.91) and a prostate volume of 45 cc (IQR 32-64). In median, 4 targeted (TB) (IQR 3-4) and 6 (IQR 5-7) systematic biopsies (SB) detected in combination overall 416 (67%) PCa and 324 (52%) csPCa. Overall CDR of TB for PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5 was 26%, 65% and 84%, respectively. Patients reported a median perioperative pain level of 2 (IQR 1-3). Four patients (0.6%) developed a post biopsy infection, one experienced urosepsis. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that transperineal MRI-TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy under LA without AP is feasible, safe and well tolerated.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the post biopsy infection rate, feasibility and prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate (CDR) by performing transperineal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy of the prostate (TPBx) under local anesthesia (LA) without antibiotic prophylaxis (AP). METHODS: We prospectively screened 766 men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI, an elevated PSA level or a suspect digital examination undergoing MRI-TRUS-TPBx in LA, from May 2019 to July 2020. Patients with the need for antibiotic prophylaxis or without a PI-RADS target lesion were excluded from final analyses. We reported CDR, perioperative pain (0-10) and postoperative complications. PCa with an ISUP grade ≥ 2 was classified as clinically significant PCa (csPCa). RESULTS: We included 621 patients with a median age of 68 years (IQR 62-74), a PSA of 6.43 ng/mL (IQR 4.72-9.91) and a prostate volume of 45 cc (IQR 32-64). In median, 4 targeted (TB) (IQR 3-4) and 6 (IQR 5-7) systematic biopsies (SB) detected in combination overall 416 (67%) PCa and 324 (52%) csPCa. Overall CDR of TB for PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5 was 26%, 65% and 84%, respectively. Patients reported a median perioperative pain level of 2 (IQR 1-3). Four patients (0.6%) developed a post biopsy infection, one experienced urosepsis. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that transperineal MRI-TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy under LA without AP is feasible, safe and well tolerated.
Authors: Florian M E Wagenlehner; Ricardo Bartoletti; Mete Cek; Magnus Grabe; Gunnar Kahlmeter; Robert Pickard; Truls E Bjerklund-Johansen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alexander Bachmann; Andrea Tubaro; Neil Barber; Frank d'Ancona; Gordon Muir; Ulrich Witzsch; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Joan Benejam; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Antony Riddick; Sascha Pahernik; Herman Roelink; Filip Ameye; Christian Saussine; Franck Bruyère; Wolfgang Loidl; Tim Larner; Nirjan-Kumar Gogoi; Richard Hindley; Rolf Muschter; Andrew Thorpe; Nitin Shrotri; Stuart Graham; Moritz Hamann; Kurt Miller; Martin Schostak; Carlos Capitán; Helmut Knispel; J Andrew Thomas Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jan P Radtke; Timur H Kuru; Silvan Boxler; Celine D Alt; Ionel V Popeneciu; Clemens Huettenbrink; Tilman Klein; Sarah Steinemann; Claudia Bergstraesser; Matthias Roethke; Wilfried Roth; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Cameron J Parkin; Daniel Gilbourd; Richard Grills; Sue Chapman; Sydney Weinstein; Neil Joshi; Balasubramaniam Indrajit; Jonathan Kam; Teresa Smilovic; Andrew Shepherd; Njeri Gikenye; Mark W Louie-Johnsun Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jakob Schlegel; Stefan Hinz; Karsten Günzel; Ahmed Magheli; Jonas Busch; Eduard Baco; Hannes Cash; Stefan Heinrich; Daniela Edler; Martin Schostak; Hendrik Borgmann Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 2.266
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: Joseph Kai Man Li; Lynn Lin Wang; Becky Su Yan Lau; Ryan Tsz Hei Tse; Carol Ka Lo Cheng; Steven Chi Ho Leung; Christine Yim Ping Wong; Stephen Kwok Wing Tsui; Jeremy Yuen Chun Teoh; Peter Ka Fung Chiu; Chi Fai Ng Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 6.073