EXIT from TRansrectal prostate biopsies (TREXIT): sepsis rates of transrectal biopsy with rectal swab culture guided antimicrobials versus freehand transperineal biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Transrectal prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) holds a risk of prostate biopsy related sepsis. We discuss our step-wise strategies aiming to reduce this risk, including targeted antimicrobials and switching to a freehand transperineal approach (FHTPBx). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study included three groups. Group A underwent TRUSBx with empirical augmented antimicrobial prophylaxis; Group B underwent TRUSBx with targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis, based on rectal-swab cultures/sensitivity; Group C underwent FHTPBx with empirical antimicrobial prophylaxis. Post biopsy sepsis, defined according to the surviving sepsis campaign and confirmed with blood or urinary cultures, were determined and rates between groups were analysed using fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of all 1501 patients, 23 developed post biopsy sepsis; Group A (12/609, 2.0%), B (9/403, 2.2%), C (2/489, 0.4%). Targeted antimicrobials did not reduce the risk of post biopsy sepsis following TRUSBx (A vs B, 2.0% vs 2.2%; p = 0.82). Patients with antimicrobial-resistant rectal flora had an increased post biopsy sepsis rate following TRUSBx despite targeted antimicrobials (9.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.003). Switching to FHTPBx reduced the risk of developing post biopsy sepsis (A vs C, 2% vs 0.4%, p = 0.03; B vs C, 2.2% vs 0.4%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted antimicrobials based on rectal swab culture failed to reduce the overall risk of post biopsy sepsis, while FHTPBx nearly eliminated this risk. We recommend the use of transperineal prostate biopsies for all patients as the most effective method to reduce the risk of sepsis.

Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation active surveillance prostate cancer cohort: a characterisation of a prostate cancer active surveillance database.

BACKGROUND: The routine clinical use of serum prostatic specific antigen (PSA) testing has allowed earlier detection of low-grade prostate cancer (PCa) with more favourable characteristics, leading to increased acceptance of management by active surveillance (AS). AS aims to avoid over treatment in men with low and intermediate-risk PCa and multiple governing bodies have described several AS protocols. This study provides a descriptive profile of the Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) AS cohort as a platform for future research in AS pathways in PCa. METHODS: Demographic and baseline characteristics were retrospectively collected in a database for patients at the GSTT AS clinic with prospective collection of follow-up data from 2012. Seven hundred eighty-eight men being monitored at GSTT with histologically confirmed intermediate-risk PCa, at least 1 follow-up appointment and diagnostic characteristics consistent with AS criteria were included in the profile. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox proportion hazards regression models were used to characterize the cohort. DISCUSSION: A relatively large proportion of the cohort includes men of African/Afro-Caribbean descent (22%). More frequent use of magnetic resonance imaging and trans-perineal biopsies at diagnosis was observed among patients diagnosed after 2012. Those who underwent trans-rectal ultrasound diagnostic biopsy received their first surveillance biopsy 20 months earlier than those who underwent trans-perineal diagnostic biopsy. At 3 years, 76.1% men remained treatment free. Predictors of treatment progression included Gleason score 3 + 4 (Hazard ratio (HR): 2.41, 95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.79-3.26) and more than 2 positive cores taken at biopsy (HR: 2.65, CI: 1.94-3.62). A decreased risk of progressing to treatment was seen among men diagnosed after 2012 (HR: 0.72, CI: 0.53-0.98). CONCLUSION: An organised biopsy surveillance approach, via two different AS pathways according to the patient's diagnostic method, can be seen within the GSTT cohort. Risk of patients progressing to treatment has decreased in the period since 2012 compared with the prior period with more than half of the cohort remaining treatment free at 5 years, highlighting that the fundamental aims of AS at GSTT are being met. Thus, this cohort is a good resource to investigate the AS treatment pathway.

Safety of "hot" and "cold" site admissions within a high-volume urology department in the United Kingdom at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety of urological admissions and procedures during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic using "hot" and "cold" sites. The secondary objective is to determine risk factors of contracting COVID-19 within our cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients admitted from March 1 to May 31, 2020 at a high-volume tertiary urology department in London, United Kingdom. Elective surgery was carried out at a "cold" site requiring a negative COVID-19 swab 72-hours prior to admission and patients were required to self-isolate for 14-days preoperatively, while all acute admissions were admitted to the "hot" site.Complications related to COVID-19 were presented as percentages. Risk factors for developing COVID-19 infection were determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 611 patients, 451 (73.8%) male and 160 (26.2%) female, with a median age of 57 (interquartile range 44-70) were admitted under the urology team; 101 (16.5%) on the "cold" site and 510 (83.5%) on the "hot" site. Procedures were performed in 495 patients of which eight (1.6%) contracted COVID-19 postoperatively with one (0.2%) postoperative mortality due to COVID-19. Overall, COVID-19 was detected in 20 (3.3%) patients with two (0.3%) deaths. Length of stay was associated with contracting COVID-19 in our cohort (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13-1.39). CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of urological procedures using "hot" and "cold" sites throughout the COVID-19 pandemic was safe practice, although the risk of COVID-19 remained and is underlined by a postoperative mortality.

Presentation, follow-up, and outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: experiences of a high-volume UK centre.

BACKGROUND: Experiences of African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) in the United Kingdom (UK) are not well documented. We compared follow-up appointments, adherence, and clinical outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS at a high-volume UK hospital with other ethnicities. METHODS: Men with confirmed low-intermediate risk Pca who attended the AS clinic (2005-2016) and had undergone ≥1 follow-up biopsy (n = 458) were included. Non-adherence (defined as >20% missed appointments), suspicion of disease progression (any upgrading, >30% positive cores, cT-stage > 3, PIRADS > 3), any upgrading from diagnostic biopsy and conversion to active treatment (prostatectomy, radiotherapy or hormone therapy) according to ethnicity (African/Afro-Caribbean versus other ethnicities) were assessed using multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three percent of eligible men were recorded as African/Afro-Caribbean, while the remainder were predominantly Caucasian. African/Afro-Caribbean men had slightly lower PSA at diagnosis (median 5.0 vs. 6.0 ng/mL) and more positive cores at diagnosis (median 2 vs. 1). They had a substantially higher rate of non-attendance at scheduled follow-up visits (24% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Adjusted analyses suggest African/Afro-Caribbean men may be at increased risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.91, P = 0.054) and upgrading (HR: 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.92, P = 0.305), though neither reached statistical significance. No difference in risk of conversion to treatment was observed between ethnic groups (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.47, P = 0.873). CONCLUSIONS: African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS for PCa in the UK are less likely to adhere to scheduled appointments, suggesting a more tailored service addressing their specific needs may be required. While African/Afro-Caribbean men were no more likely to convert to treatment than Caucasian/other men, findings of a potentially higher risk of disease progression signal the need for careful selection and monitoring of African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS. Larger prospective, multicentre studies with longer follow-up are required to provide more definitive conclusions.

Negative first follow-up prostate biopsy on active surveillance is associated with decreased risk of upgrading, suspicion of progression and converting to active treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk of disease progression and conversion to active treatment following a negative biopsy while on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men on an AS programme at a single tertiary hospital (London, UK) between 2003 and 2018 with confirmed low-intermediate-risk PCa, Gleason Grade Group <3, clinical stage 30% positive cores, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Likert score >3/T3 or PSA level of >20 ng/mL. Conversion to treatment included radical or hormonal treatment. RESULTS: Among the 460 eligible patients, 23% had negative follow-up biopsy findings. The median follow-up was 62 months, with one to two repeat biopsies and two MRIs per patient during that period. Negative biopsy findings at first repeat biopsy were associated with decreased risk of converting to active treatment (hazard ration [HR] 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.37; P < 0.001), suspicion of disease progression (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.94; P = 0.029), and upgrading (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99; P = 0.047). Data are limited by fewer men with multiple follow-up biopsies. CONCLUSION: A negative biopsy finding at the first scheduled follow-up biopsy among men on AS for PCa was strongly associated with decreased risk of subsequent upgrading, clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and conversion to active treatment. A less intense surveillance protocol should be considered for this cohort of patients.

Urology nurses lead the way in adopting an innovative prostate biopsy technique.

Jonah Rusere, Advanced Nurse Practitioner for South East London Accountable Cancer Network, outlines an opportunity for urology nurses to make a difference to prostate cancer pathways.

Targeted and systematic cognitive freehand-guided transperineal biopsy: is there still a role for systematic biopsy?

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether targeted cognitive freehand-assisted transperineal biopsies using a PrecisionpointTM device still require additional systematic biopsies to avoid missing clinically significant prostate cancer, and to investigate the benefit of a quadrant-only biopsy approach to analyse whether a quadrant or extended target of the quadrant containing the target only would have been equivalent to systematic biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients underwent combined systematic mapping and targeted transperineal prostate biopsies at a single institution. Biopsies were performed using the Precisionpoint device (Perineologic, Cumberland, MD, USA) under either local anaesthetic (58%, 163/282), i.v. sedation (12%, 34/282) or general anaesthetic (30%, 85/282). A mean (range) of 24 (5-42) systematic and 4.2 (1-11) target cores were obtained. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were reported using the Likert scale. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason 7 or above. Histopathological results were correlated with the presence of an MRI abnormality within a spatial quadrant and the other adjoining or non-adjoining (opposite) quadrants. Histological concordance with radical prostatectomy specimens was analysed. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients were included in this study. Their mean (range) age was 66.8 (36-80) years, median (range) prostate-specific antigen level 7.4 (0.91-116) ng/mL and mean prostate volume 45.8 (13-150) mL. In this cohort, 82% of cases (230/282) were primary biopsies and 18% (52/282) were patients on surveillance. In all, 69% of biopsies (195/282) were identified to have clinically significant disease (Gleason ≥3 + 4). Any cancer (Gleason ≥3 + 3) was found in 84% (237/282) of patients. Of patients with clinically significant disease, the target biopsies alone picked up 88% (171/195), with systematic biopsy picking up the additional 12% (24/195) that the target biopsies missed. This altered with Likert score; 73% of Likert score 3 disease was detected by target biopsy, 92% of Likert score 4 and 100% of Likert score 5. Target biopsies with additional same-quadrant-only systematic cores picked up 75% (18/24) of significant cancer that was missed on target only, found in the same quadrant as the target. CONCLUSION: Systematic biopsy is still an important tool when evaluating all patients referred for prostate biopsy, but the need is decreased with increasing suspicion on MRI. Patients with very high suspicion of prostate cancer (Likert score 5) may not require systematic cores, unless representative surrounding biopsies are required for other specific treatments (e.g. focal therapy, or operative planning). More prospective studies are needed to evaluate this in full.