Feasibilities and outcomes of patients treated with simultaneous prostate biopsy and general urological surgeries

Su,Rui; Pan,Jin-Feng; Huang,Rui-Da; Tao,Zhu-Lei; Yu,Cheng-Ling; Jiang,Jun-Hui; Ma,Qi

doi:10.3892/etm.2022.11729

Feasibilities and outcomes of patients treated with simultaneous prostate biopsy and general urological surgeries

Authors:
- Rui Su
- Jin-Feng Pan
- Rui-Da Huang
- Zhu-Lei Tao
- Cheng-Ling Yu
- Jun-Hui Jiang
- Qi Ma
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Comprehensive Urogenital Cancer Center, Ningbo First Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315010, P.R. China, Ningbo Clinical Research Center for Urological Disease, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315010, P.R. China
Published online on: November 24, 2022 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2022.11729
Article Number: 31

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present single‑center retrospective clinical real‑world study aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of patients who underwent simultaneous prostate biopsy and general urological surgeries. The medical records of 49 patients who underwent prostate biopsy and general urological surgeries simultaneously from October 2016 to June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients' outcomes were evaluated 3 days, 1 month and 6 months after biopsy. Of the 49 biopsy cases, 41 were treated by transurethral prostatectomy, two by ureteroscopic lithotripsy, two by laparoscopic renal cyst decortication, two by cystostomy and two by ureteral stent extraction. The overall detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer was 22.4%. The rate in patients with a prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI‑RADS) score of 4‑5 was 100%, while in cases with a PI‑RADS score of <3 it was 7.1%. Postoperative complications within 3 days included hematuria in 39 (79.6%) cases, fever in three (6.1%) cases and hematochezia in two (4.1%) cases. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hematuria between the transrectal and transperineal approaches; however, the overall incidence of complications was significantly reduced after switching from a transrectal approach to a transperineal approach. No complications were observed after 1 or 6 months. In summary, combining simultaneous prostate biopsy to general urological surgeries is a safe and feasible approach. The transperineal approach has a lower incidence of complications. This method may benefit certain patients who are concurrently undergoing general urological surgeries and are under suspicion of prostate cancer in real‑world clinical practice.

View Figures

View References

1	Siegel RL, Miller KD and Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 70:7–30. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Kimura T and Egawa S: Epidemiology of prostate cancer in Asian countries. Int J Urol. 25:524–531. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Streicher J, Meyerson BL, Karivedu V and Sidana A: A review of optimal prostate biopsy: Indications and techniques. Ther Adv Urol. 11(1756287219870074)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Mottet N, van den Bergh RC and Briers E: EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-IOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2019. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2019 edition. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/.
5	Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, Doble A, Goodwin L, Davis M, Catto JW, Avery K, Neal DE and Hamdy FC: Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: Prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ. 344(d7894)2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, Weidner W and Loeb S: Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 71:353–365. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Das CJ, Razik A, Sharma S and Verma S: Prostate biopsy: When and how to perform. Clin Radiol. 74:853–864. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, Rosario DJ, Scattoni V and Lotan Y: Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 64:876–892. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Skouteris VM, Crawford ED, Mouraviev V, Arangua P, Metsinis MP, Skouteris M, Zacharopoulos G and Stone NN: Transrectal ultrasound-guided versus transperineal mapping prostate biopsy: Complication comparison. Rev Urol. 20:19–25. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, Spevack L, Hajek D, Tunis A, Lai E and Loblaw A: Collaborators. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: Experience with 1,287 patients. Prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol. 201:1121–1126. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Rui S, Zejun Y and Yue C: The application of anesthesia and analgesia in transrectal prostate biopsy. Chin Med J. 40:76–78. 2019.(In Chinese).
12	Garcia-Perdomo HA, Mejia NG, Fernandez L and Carbonell J: Effectiveness of periprostatic block to prevent pain in transrectal prostate biopsy: A systematic review and a network meta-analysis. Cent European J Urol. 72:121–133. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Cho JM, Lee SW, Kang JY and Yoo TK: Safety and efficacy of combined transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy and transurethral resection of the prostate. Korean J Urol. 51:101–105. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PU, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, et al: PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system:. 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 69:16–40. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Omer A and Lamb AD: Optimizing prostate biopsy techniques. Curr Opin Urol. 29:578–586. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Yang TY, Chow YC, Lin WR, Ko MC, Chen M, Chang HK, Hsu JM, Yang S, Lin WC and Chiu AW: Concomitant transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy and transurethral resection of prostate in patients with urinary retention and elevated serum prostate-specific antigen levels. J Chin Med Assoc. 79:605–608. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Chen YT, Chiang PH and Hsu CC: Simultaneous transurethral resection of prostate and prostate needle biopsy in patients with acute urinary retention and elevated prostate specific antigen levels. Chang Gung Med J. 32:417–422. 2009.PubMed/NCBI
18	Tu X, Liu Z, Chang T, Qiu S, Xu H, Bao Y, Yang L and Wei Q: Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may perform better than transrectal route in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 17:e860–e870. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Pepe P, Fraggetta F, Galia A, Grasso G and Aragona F: Prostate cancer detection by TURP after repeated negative saturation biopsy in patients with persistent suspicion of cancer: A case-control study on 75 consecutive patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 13:83–86. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Tavolaro S, Mozer P, Roupret M, Comperat E, Rozet F, Barret E, Drouin S, Vaessen C, Lucidarme O, Cussenot O, et al: Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: Evaluation of discriminant location criteria using multiparametric fusion-guided biopsy. Diagn Interv Imaging. 99:403–411. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, Tempany CM, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Margolis DJ, et al: Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 76:340–351. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, Renner T, Herout R, Baunacke M, Laniado M, Baretton GB, Froehner M, Zastrow S and Wirth MP: Evaluation of prostate imaging reporting and data system classification in the prediction of tumor aggressiveness in targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy. Urol Int. 99:177–185. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Pepe P, Pennisi M and Fraggetta F: How many cores should be obtained during saturation biopsy in the Era of multiparametric magnetic resonance? Experience in 875 patients submitted to repeat prostate biopsy. Urology. 137:133–137. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
24	Jaffe J, Stakhovsky O, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G and Rozet F: Surgical outcomes for men undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol. 178:483–487; discussion 487. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
25	Menard J, de la Taille A, Hoznek A, Allory Y, Vordos D, Yiou R, Abbou CC and Salomon L: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate: Surgical and functional outcomes. Urology. 72:593–597. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
26	Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC, Ahlering TE, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Eastham JA, Ficarra V, Guazzoni G, et al: Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol. 62:368–381. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
27	Shen BY, Chang PL, Lee SH, Chen CL and Tsui KH: Complications following combined transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsies and transurethral resection of the prostate. Arch Androl. 52:123–127. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar