No abstract

Objectives To compare data on transperineal template biopsy (TPTB) under general anesthesia (GA) compared with local anesthesia (LA) procedures using the PrecisionPoint™ Transperineal Access System (PPTAS) in relation to tolerability, cancer detection rate, complications, and cost. Methods A prospective pilot cohort study of patients undergoing transperineal biopsy was performed. Patients were excluded if they had concurrent flexible cystoscopy or language barriers. Patients had a choice of GA or LA. A prospective questionnaire on Days 0, 1, 7, and 30 was applied. The primary outcome was patient tolerability. Secondary outcomes were cancer detection rate, complication rate, and theater utilization. Results This study included 80 patients (40 GA TPTB and 40 LA PPTAS). Baseline characteristics including age, prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE), findings, and prostate volume were comparable between the groups (p = 0.3790, p = 0.9832, p = 0.444, p = 0.3939, respectively). Higher median prostate imaging‐reporting and data system (PI‐RADS) score of 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2) versus 3 (IQR 1) was noted in the LA group (p = 0.0326). Pain was higher leaving recovery in the GA group however not significantly (p = 0.0555). Median pain score at LA infiltration was 5/10 (IQR 3), with no difference in pain at Days 1, 7, or 30 (p = 0.2722, 0.6465, and 0.8184, respectively). For GA versus LA, the overall cancer detection rate was 55% versus 55% (p = 1.000) with clinically significant cancer in 22.5% versus 35% (p = 0.217). Acute urinary retention (AUR) occurred in 5% of GA and 2.5% of LA patients (p = 1.000). The GA cohort spent longer in theater and in recovery with a median of 93.5 min versus 57 min for the LA group (p = <0.0001). Conclusion This study demonstrates that transperineal biopsy is safely performed under LA with no difference between the cohorts in relation cancer detection or AUR. LA biopsy also consumed less theater and recovery resources. A further larger prospective randomized controlled trial is required to confirm the findings of this study.

Objective: This study examines the diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in a high-volume centre to potentially stratify patients prior to prostate biopsy. Methods: All biopsy naïve patients who had mpMRI prostate and transperineal biopsy of prostate (TPBx) in 2017 and 2018 were included. There were no exclusion criteria. All patients, regardless of the mpMRI result, underwent systematic template biopsy under general anaesthesia with cognitive target biopsy if indicated. Clinicopathological data were extracted from medical records. The primary outcome was the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI prostate in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) compared with template TPBx. Results: In total, 140 patients were included. Overall, 57.1% had a positive biopsy. A higher Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data Systems (PI-RADS) score was associated with a higher risk of diagnosing clinically significant PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) ⩾ 2) ( p < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of mpMRI in detecting clinically significant PCa with a PI-RADS ⩾ 3 lesion, was 95% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.0–99.3%), 41% (95% CI 31.3–51.3%), 95.3% (95% CI 84.2–99.4%) and 39.2% (95% CI 29.4–49.6%), respectively. Combining this with prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) of <0.15 further improved the NPV to 100% (86.3–100). Binomial logistic regression to understand the effects of PSA, DRE and PI-RADS score on predicting clinically significant PCa (ISUP ⩾ 2) found increasing PSA (odds ratio (OR) 1.06, (95% CI 1.00–1.11, p = 0.022)) and PI-RADS (OR 3.17, (95% CI 1.94–5.18, p < 0.001)) to be significant predictors. Malignant DRE was not a significant predictor ( p = 0.087). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the high sensitivity and NPV of mpMRI combined with PSAD may play a pivotal role in stratifying men for prostate biopsy and help avoid biopsy and its associated morbidity in select patients. Level of Evidence: 2b (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence)

Objective To conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the diagnostic ability, complication rate, patient tolerability, and cost of local anaesthetic (LA) transperineal prostate biopsy. Methods Two reviewers searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Embase for publications on LA transperineal prostate biopsy up to March 2021. Outcomes of interest included cancer detection rates, complication rates, pain assessments and cost. Results A total of 35 publications with 113 944 men were included in this review. The cancer detection rate for LA transperineal prostate biopsy in patients undergoing primary biopsy was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45–0.60; I2 = 97) and the clinically significant cancer detection rate (Gleason≥3 + 4) was 37% (95% CI 0.24–0.52; I2 = 99%). The rate of infection‐related complications in the included studies was 0.15% (95% CI 0.0000–0.0043; I2 = 86). The LA transperineal procedures had a low rate of procedural abandonment (26/6954, 0.37%), with the greatest pain scores measured during LA administration. No formal cost analyses on LA transperineal prostate biopsies were identified in the literature. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was high, with considerable study heterogeneity and publication bias. Conclusion Transperineal prostate biopsy performed under LA is a viable option for centres interested in avoiding the risk of infection associated with transrectal biopsy, and the logistical burden of general anaesthesia. Further investigation into LA transperineal prostate biopsy with comparative studies is warranted for its consideration as the standard in prostate biopsy technique.