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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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: 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