MRI/US Fusion Transperineal Versus Transrectral Biopsy of Prostate Cancer: Outcomes and Complication Rates, a Tertiary Medical Center Experience in the Middle East

IF 1 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
A. El-Achkar, Nassib F. Abou Heidar, Muheiddine Labban, Mouhamad Al-Moussawy, Hisham Moukaddem, R. Nasr, R. Khauli, A. El-Hajj, M. Bulbul
{"title":"MRI/US Fusion Transperineal Versus Transrectral Biopsy of Prostate Cancer: Outcomes and Complication Rates, a Tertiary Medical Center Experience in the Middle East","authors":"A. El-Achkar, Nassib F. Abou Heidar, Muheiddine Labban, Mouhamad Al-Moussawy, Hisham Moukaddem, R. Nasr, R. Khauli, A. El-Hajj, M. Bulbul","doi":"10.5152/tud.2022.21248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective : To report on the outcomes of transperineal versus transrectal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate including detection of clinically significant cancer and complications. This is the first and largest series in the Middle East. Material and methods Between May 2019 and June 2020, 145 patients with suspicious lesions on magnetic resonance imaging underwent magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy at our center. Transperineal biopsy was performed under light sedation, while transrectal biopsy patients had a periprostatic block for anesthesia. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason ≥3 + 4 Results In all, 98 transperineal biopsies and 47 transrectal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsies were done. Patients had similar prebiopsy parameters (transperineal vs. transrectal): median age (64.5 vs. 66 years; P = .68), median prostate-specific antigen value (7.5 vs. 7.5; P = .42), and median prostate volume (51 vs. 52.5; P = .83). Those that underwent transperineal biopsy had fewer average total number of cores compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (11 vs. 13; P = .025) fewer average number of random cores (3 vs. 6; P < .0001), and the detection rate of clinically significant cancer was similar between the groups (44% vs. 48.9%; P = .57). No difference in hematuria, retention, and sepsis rate requiring admission (1 vs. 2; P = .2) was observed. However, more patients had urinary tract infection in the transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy group compared to transperineal biopsy group (5 vs. 1; P = .006) that were treated with antibiotics on outside basis. Conclusion : Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound transperineal fusion biopsy has similar detection rate of clinically significant cancer compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy with less urinary tract infection post biopsy.","PeriodicalId":23366,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2022.21248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objective : To report on the outcomes of transperineal versus transrectal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate including detection of clinically significant cancer and complications. This is the first and largest series in the Middle East. Material and methods Between May 2019 and June 2020, 145 patients with suspicious lesions on magnetic resonance imaging underwent magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy at our center. Transperineal biopsy was performed under light sedation, while transrectal biopsy patients had a periprostatic block for anesthesia. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason ≥3 + 4 Results In all, 98 transperineal biopsies and 47 transrectal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsies were done. Patients had similar prebiopsy parameters (transperineal vs. transrectal): median age (64.5 vs. 66 years; P = .68), median prostate-specific antigen value (7.5 vs. 7.5; P = .42), and median prostate volume (51 vs. 52.5; P = .83). Those that underwent transperineal biopsy had fewer average total number of cores compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (11 vs. 13; P = .025) fewer average number of random cores (3 vs. 6; P < .0001), and the detection rate of clinically significant cancer was similar between the groups (44% vs. 48.9%; P = .57). No difference in hematuria, retention, and sepsis rate requiring admission (1 vs. 2; P = .2) was observed. However, more patients had urinary tract infection in the transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy group compared to transperineal biopsy group (5 vs. 1; P = .006) that were treated with antibiotics on outside basis. Conclusion : Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound transperineal fusion biopsy has similar detection rate of clinically significant cancer compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy with less urinary tract infection post biopsy.
MRI/US融合经尿道前列腺穿刺与经直肠前列腺穿刺术治疗癌症:结果和并发症发生率,中东三级医疗中心的经验
目的:报告经盆腔与经直肠前列腺磁共振成像/超声融合活检的结果,包括临床意义重大的癌症和并发症的检测。这是中东地区第一个也是最大的一个系列。材料和方法2019年5月至2020年6月,145名磁共振成像可疑病变的患者在我中心接受了磁共振成像/超声融合前列腺活检。经会阴活检是在轻度镇静下进行的,而经直肠活检患者则进行了前列腺周围阻滞麻醉。临床显著的癌症定义为Gleason≥3 + 4结果共行经会阴穿刺活检98例,经直肠磁共振/超声融合前列腺穿刺活检47例。患者具有相似的术前参数(经会阴与经直肠):中位年龄(64.5岁与66岁;P = .68)、前列腺特异性抗原中值(7.5对7.5;P = .42)和前列腺体积中位数(51对52.5;P = .83)。与经直肠超声引导的活检相比,接受经会阴活检的患者平均总核数更少(11对13;P = .025)随机核心的平均数量更少(3对6;P<.0001),并且两组之间临床显著癌症的检测率相似(44%对48.9%;P = .57)。血尿、尿潴留和需要入院的败血症发生率无差异(1比2;P = .2) 观察到。然而,与经会阴活检组相比,经直肠超声引导的活检组中有更多的患者患有尿路感染(5比1;P = .006),在外部基础上用抗生素治疗。结论:磁共振成像/超声经盆腔融合活组织检查与经直肠超声引导活组织检查具有相似的临床意义癌症检出率,但活组织检查后尿路感染较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Turkish journal of urology
Turkish journal of urology Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: The aim of the Turkish Journal of Urology is to contribute to the literature by publishing scientifically high-quality research articles as well as reviews, editorials, letters to the editor and case reports. The journal’s target audience includes, urology specialists, medical specialty fellows and other specialists and practitioners who are interested in the field of urology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信