Patient Reported Outcomes of Transperineal Prostate Biopsy With Tumescent Local Anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: To report the outcomes of performing transperineal prostate biopsy in the office setting using the novel anesthetic technique of tumescent local anesthesia. We report anxiety, pain, and embarrassment of patients who underwent this procedure compared to patients who underwent a transrectal prostate biopsy using standard local anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing either a transperineal prostate biopsy under tumescent local anesthesia or a transrectal prostate biopsy with standard local anesthetic technique were prospectively enrolled. The tumescent technique employed dilute lidocaine solution administered using a self-filling syringe. Patients were asked to rate their pain before, during, and after their procedure using a visual analog scale. Patient anxiety and embarrassment was assessed using the Testing Modalities Index Questionnaire. RESULTS: Between April 2021 and June 2022, 430 patients underwent a transperineal prostate biopsy using tumescent local anesthesia and 65 patients underwent a standard transrectal prostate biopsy. Patients who underwent a transperineal biopsy had acceptable but significantly higher pain scores than those who underwent a transrectal prostate biopsy (3.9 vs 1.6, P-value <.01). These scores fell to almost zero immediately following their procedure. Additionally, transperineal biopsy patients were more likely to experience anxiety (71% vs 45%, P < .01) and embarrassment (32% vs 15%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Transperineal biopsy using local tumescent anesthesia is safe and well-tolerated. Despite the benefits, patients undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy under tumescent anesthesia still experienced worse procedural pain, anxiety, and embarrassment. Additional studies examining other adjunctive interventions to improve patient experience during transperineal prostate biopsy are needed.

Assessment of prostate cancer progression using a translational needle photoacoustic sensing probe: Preliminary study with intact human prostates ex-vivo.

In our previous studies, we demonstrated the ability of an interstitial all-optical needle photoacoustic (PA) sensing probe and PA spectral analysis (PASA) to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer. In this clinical translation investigation, we integrated the optical components of the needle PA sensing probe into a 18G steel needle. The translational needle PA sensing probe was evaluated using intact human prostates in a simulated ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. PA signals were acquired at 1220 nm, 1370 nm, 800 nm and 266 nm at each interstitial measurement location and quantified by PASA within the frequency range of 8-28 MHz. The measurement locations were stained for establishing spatial correlations between the quantitative measurements and the histological diagnosing. Most of the quantitative PA assessments reveal statistically significant differences between the benign and cancerous regions. Multivariate analysis combining the PASA quantifications shows an accuracy close to 90% in differentiating the benign and cancerous regions in the prostates.

Pooled outcomes of performing freehand transperineal prostate biopsy with the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System.

Objectives: To report the results of a pooled analysis evaluating the cancer detection rates, complications, and tolerability of prostate biopsies performed using the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System. Patients and Methods: The medical literature was reviewed to identify studies published prior to 1 October 2021 evaluating the PrecisionPoint device for performance of transperineal prostate biopsy. Pooled analyses were performed to assess overall and clinically significant cancer detection rates. Additionally, data on complications as well as patient tolerability of the procedure when performed under local anaesthesia were extracted. Results: Transperineal biopsy with the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System achieved overall and clinically significant cancer detection rates of 67.9% and 42.6%, respectively. Among patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3, 4, and 5 lesions on prostate magnetic resonance imaging, clinically significant disease was found in 31.7%, 55.7%, and 71.8% of patients, respectively. Complications were rare, with sepsis reported in 4 (0.1%) of 3411 procedures despite frequent omission of antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients reported acceptable tolerability of the procedure when performed under local anaesthesia. Conclusions: Within the available medical literature, there is uniform evidence supporting the use of the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System for performing prostate biopsy procedures. The reported cancer detection and infectious complication rates with this device are in line with other methods for performing transperineal prostate biopsy. A unique aspect of the PrecisionPoint device is its ability to facilitate performing transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia. This factor will likely lead to increased adoption of the beneficial transperineal approach to prostate biopsy.

Outcomes of freehand transperineal prostate biopsy with omission of antibiotic prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility of antimicrobial prophylaxis when performing freehand systematic transperineal (TP) biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2012 to February 2020, freehand TP prostate biopsy via angiocatheters or the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System was performed on consecutive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) or confirmed PCa. Biopsies were performed by a single urologist (developer of the PrecisionPoint system). Clinical data were collected retrospectively. Pre-procedural antibiotics were given to all patients up until 6 September 2016. After this date, antibiotics were omitted from those without risk factors (chronic catherization, concurrent endoscopic procedure, history of sepsis after transrectal [TR] biopsy, history of TR biopsy within the last year, prosthetic joints/heart valves). Patients were assessed 1 week after biopsy for symptoms, emergency department visits, and hospital admissions. Patients who received antimicrobial prophylaxis were compared with those who did not, and infectious complications were analysed. Additionally, oncological outcomes were reported. RESULTS: A total of 988 biopsies (median prostate-specific antigen level 7.7 ng/mL) were included in the analysis on 756 patients. Prophylaxis was given in 538 of the biopsies (54.4%) and in 450 (48.6%) it was not. There was a statistical difference in median age (67 vs 69 years; P < 0.001), abnormal digital rectal examination (13% vs 5%; P < 0.001), and history of multiparametic magnetic resonance imaging (15% vs 31%; P < 0.001) between the prophylaxis and no-prophylaxis cohorts, respectively. There were no documented complications in those who received antibiotics. Within the no-prophylaxis cohort, there were three (0.66%) complications (P = 0.09). Two patients (0.44%) had urinary tract infections and one patient (0.22%) experienced post-procedural urinary retention. No patient required hospital admission or an emergency department visit. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 152 (40.0%) and 64 patients (39.0%) on initial biopsy and prior negative biopsy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that antimicrobial prophylaxis may be safely omitted in selected patients when using the freehand TP approach.