A multi-institutional randomized controlled trial comparing first-generation transrectal high-resolution micro-ultrasound with conventional frequency transrectal ultrasound for prostate biopsy.

Objectives: To study high-frequency 29 MHz transrectal side-fire micro-ultrasound (micro-US) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on prostate biopsy, and validate an image interpretation protocol for micro-US imaging of the prostate. Materials and methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed where 1676 men with indications for prostate biopsy and without known prostate cancer were randomized 1:1 to micro-US vs conventional end-fire ultrasound (conv-US) transrectal-guided prostate biopsy across five sites in North America. The trial was split into two phases, before and after training on a micro-US image interpretation protocol that was developed during the trial using data from the pre-training micro-US arm. Investigators received a standardized training program mid-trial, and the post-training micro-US data were used to examine the training effect. Results: Detection of csPCa (the primary outcome) was no better with the first-generation micro-US system than with conv-US in the overall population (34.6% vs 36.6%, respectively, P = .21). Data from the first portion of the trial were, however, used to develop an image interpretation protocol termed PRI-MUS in order to address the lack of understanding of the appearance of cancer under micro-US. Micro-US sensitivity in the post-training group improved to 60.8% from 24.6% (P < .01), while specificity decreased (from 84.2% to 63.2%). Detection of csPCa in the micro-US arm increased by 7% after training (32% to 39%, P < .03), but training instituted mid-trial did not affect the overall results of the comparison between arms. Conclusion: Micro-US provided no clear benefit over conv-US for the detection of csPCa at biopsy. However, it became evident during the trial that training and increasing experience with this novel technology improved the performance of this first-generation system.

Are temporary inferior vena cava filters really temporary?

BACKGROUND: Despite significant risk for venous thromboembolism, severely injured trauma patients often are not candidates for prophylaxis or treatment with anticoagulation. Long-term inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are associated with increased risk of postphlebitic syndrome. Retrievable IVC filters potentially offer a better solution, but only if the filter is removed; our hypothesis is that the most of them are not. METHODS: This retrospective study queried a level I trauma registry for IVC filter insertion from September 1997 through June 2004. RESULTS: One IVC filter was placed before the availability of retrievable filters in 2001. Since 2001, 27 filters have been placed, indicating a change in practice patterns. Filters were placed for prophylaxis (n = 11) or for therapy in patients with pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (n = 17). Of 23 temporary filters, only 8 (35%) were removed. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons must critically evaluate indications for IVC filter insertion, develop standard criteria for placement, and implement protocols to ensure timely removal of temporary IVC filters.

Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: relation between ASA use and bleeding complications.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relation between ASA ingestion and the incidence of bleeding complications after transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy of the prostate. METHODS: Overall, 1810 patients with suspected prostate disease were followed after biopsy. ASA use was determined before the procedure. A TRUS-guided sextant biopsy was performed and patients were contacted immediately and by follow-up telephone call to determine whether there were any immediate or delayed bleeding complications. RESULTS: Overall, 46 subjects (2.5%) had bleeding complications. Of the 54 subjects reporting current use of ASA, 2 (3.7%) had such complications. This difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of an association between the use of ASA and postbiopsy bleeding complications.