Literature DB >> 35230932

Initial experience and cancer detection rates of office-based transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy under local anesthesia.

Zachary Kozel1, Clay Martin1, David Mikhail2, Aaron Smith1, Luke Griffiths1, Daniel Nethala1, Manish Vira1, Michael Schwartz1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to demonstrate feasibility and cancer detection rates of office-based ultrasound-guided transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion (TFB) prostate biopsy under local anesthesia.
METHODS: With institutional review board approval, records of men undergoing TFB in the office setting under local anesthesia were reviewed. Baseline patient characteristics, MRI findings, cancer detection rates, and complications were recorded. The PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System (Perineologic, Cumberland, MD, U.S.), along with UroNav 3.0 image-fusion system (Invivo International, Best, The Netherlands) were used for all procedures. Following biopsy, men were surveyed to assess patient experience.
RESULTS: Between January 2019 and February 2020, 200 TFBs were performed, of which 141 (71%) were positive for prostate cancer, with 117 (83%) Gleason grade group 2 or higher. A total of 259 of 265 MRI lesions were biopsied, with 127 (49%) positive overall. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4-5 lesions were positive for prostate cancer in 59% of cases. The mean procedural time was 20 minutes, with a patient enter-to-exit room time of 54 minutes. There were no septic complications, no patients required post-procedure hospital admission, and all procedures were successfully completed. Seventy-five percent of patients surveyed reported complete resolution of pain at three days following the procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Office-based TFB represents a viable approach to prostate cancer detection following prostate MRI. Larger-scale assessment is needed to categorize cancer detection rates more accurately by PI-RADs subset, patient selection factors, complication rate, and cost relative to TFB under anesthesia.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 35230932      PMCID: PMC9328860          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.7472

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   2.052


  29 in total

1.  Prosbiotate: a multicenter, prospective analysis of infectious complications after prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Franck Bruyère; Sandra Malavaud; Philippe Bertrand; Aliette Decock; Gérard Cariou; Jean Dominique Doublet; Louis Bernard; Hubert Bugel; Sophie Conquy; Albert Sotto; Jean Paul Boiteux; Bertrand Pogu; Xavier Rebillard; Pierre Mongiat-Artus; Patrick Coloby
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Rectal swab culture-directed antimicrobial prophylaxis for prostate biopsy and risk of postprocedure infection: a cohort study.

Authors:  Jessica Dai; Andrew Leone; Leonard Mermel; Kathleen Hwang; Gyan Pareek; Stephen Schiff; Dragan Golijanin; Joseph F Renzulli
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS™ Version 2 Using the International Society of Urological Pathology Prostate Cancer Grade Group System.

Authors:  Sherif Mehralivand; Sandra Bednarova; Joanna H Shih; Francesca V Mertan; Sonia Gaur; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients.

Authors:  Satoshi Washino; Tomohisa Okochi; Kimitoshi Saito; Tsuzumi Konishi; Masaru Hirai; Yutaka Kobayashi; Tomoaki Miyagawa
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Outcomes of transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy in 409 patients.

Authors:  James L Symons; Andrew Huo; Carlo L Yuen; Anne-Maree Haynes; Jayne Matthews; Robert L Sutherland; Phillip Brenner; Phillip D Stricker
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.

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

Review 7.  Prevention of sepsis prior to prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Liam Toner; Damien M Bolton; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2016-03-11

8.  A panel of kallikrein markers can reduce unnecessary biopsy for prostate cancer: data from the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening in Göteborg, Sweden.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Gunnar Aus; Carl-Gustav Pihl; Charlotte Becker; Kim Pettersson; Peter T Scardino; Jonas Hugosson; Hans Lilja
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2008-07-08       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Comparison between Ultrasound Guided Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Le-Hang Guo; Rong Wu; Hui-Xiong Xu; Jun-Mei Xu; Jian Wu; Shuai Wang; Xiao-Wan Bo; Bo-Ji Liu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Assessment of free-hand transperineal targeted prostate biopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion in Chinese men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.

Authors:  Huibo Lian; Junlong Zhuang; Wei Wang; Bing Zhang; Jiong Shi; Danyan Li; Yao Fu; Xuping Jiang; Weimin Zhou; Hongqian Guo
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.