Can residents perform transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy with patient comfort comparable to biopsy performed by attending staff urologists?

The role of urology and radiology in prostate biopsy: current trends and future perspectives

PURPOSE

Prostate biopsy is central to the accurate histological diagnosis of prostate cancer. In current practice, the biopsy procedure can be performed using a transrectal or transperineal route with different technologies available for targeting of lesions within the prostate. Historically, the biopsy procedure was performed solely by urologists, but with the advent of image-guided techniques, the involvement of radiologists in prostate biopsy has become more common. Herein, we discuss the pros, cons and future considerations regarding their ongoing role.

METHODS

A narrative review regarding the current evidence was completed. PubMed and Cochrane central register of controlled trials were search until January 2024. All study types were of consideration if published after 2000 and an English language translation was available.

RESULTS

There are no published studies that directly compare outcomes of prostate biopsy when performed by a urologist or radiologist. In all published studies regarding the learning curve for prostate biopsy, the procedure was performed by urologists. These studies suggest that the learning curve for prostate biopsy is between 10 and 50 cases to reach proficiency in terms of prostate cancer detection and complications. It is recognised that many urologists are poorly able to accurately interpret multi parametric (mp)-MRI of the prostate. Collaboration between the specialities is of importance with urology offering the advantage of being involved in prior and future care of the patient while radiology has the advantage of being able to expertly interpret preprocedure MRI.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence to suggest that prostate biopsy should be solely performed by a specific specialty. The most important factor remains knowledge of the relevant anatomy and sufficient volume of cases to develop and maintain skills.

Residents and Consultants Have Equal Outcomes When Performing Transrectal Fusion Biopsies: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The aim of our study was to compare the performance of residents vs. consultants in transrectal fusion prostate biopsies (FUS-PBs), as well as patient-reported comfort. Between January 2021 and October 2022, a consecutive series of patients undergoing FUS-PBs were randomized into two groups: (A) FUS-PBs performed by a consultant; (B) FUS-PBs performed by trained residents (>50 procedures). All patients underwent FUS-PBs with 12 systematic cores and 3/6 target cores. The detection rate and number of positive cores in the target lesion were compared between groups, and the patient's discomfort after the procedure was evaluated using the VAS scale. Overall, 140 patients with a median age of 72 years were enrolled. Overall, 69/140 (49.3%) presented prostate cancer and 53/69 (76.8%) presented a clinically significant cancer (Grade Group ≥ 2). Consultants presented a detection rate of 37/70 (52.9%) and residents a detection rate of 32/70 (45.7%) (p > 0.2); the mean number of positive cores in the index lesion was similar in both groups (1.5 vs. 1.1; p > 0.10). In terms of the patients' experiences, the procedure was well tolerated, with a median VAS score of 2 in both groups, with no statistically significant differences. Residents showed satisfactory outcomes in terms of detection rate, procedural time, and patient comfort when performing prostate biopsies. Residents, after adequate training, can safely perform prostate biopsies.

The association of level of practical experience in transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy with its diagnostic outcome

INTRODUCTION The diagnostic yield of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy is influenced by many patient and procedure specific factors. However, the role of operator specific factors remains inadequately defined. This study investigated the association of diagnostic outcome of TRUS guided biopsy with operator skill level. METHODS This study looked at a consecutive cohort of 690 men undergoing their first extended pattern TRUS guided prostate biopsy by 27 operators over a 24-month period in a single institution. Logistic regression was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS Biopsies performed by consultants (odds ratio [OR]: 2.35, p=0.004) and senior trainees (OR: 2.37, p=0.002) in patients with prostate specific antigen levels of <10ng/ml were more likely to be positive than those performed by junior trainees (cancer detection rate 50.0%, 50.3% and 29.9% respectively). Furthermore, biopsies performed by junior trainees yielded a significantly higher proportion of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of ≥3+4 than those performed by senior trainees (OR: 2.11, p=0.031) and consultants (OR: 2.40, p=0.013) (81.4%, 67.5% and 64.6% respectively). No significant differences emerged between operator skill groups for complications, rebiopsy rates or the number of prostate cancers found during the follow-up period (median: 34 months) of patients with a negative biopsy. CONCLUSIONS Level of operator experience is associated with the diagnostic outcome of extended pattern TRUS guided biopsy. The findings of this study imply that case selection, self-audit and expert supervision for the duration of the learning curve should form the basis of biopsy training.

High level of patient satisfaction and comfort during diagnostic urological procedures performed by urologists and residents

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate how patients experience diagnostic urological procedures performed by urologists, junior residents and senior residents, and to assess the influence of procedure-related factors on patient experiences.

METHODS

Data were collected during 222 procedures: 84 transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies (TRUSP; urologists n = 39, residents n = 45) and 138 urethrocystoscopies (UCS; urologists n = 44, residents n = 94) in six hospitals. Patient experiences were assessed using a questionnaire focusing on pain, comfort and satisfaction (visual analogue scale, 0-10) and communication aspects on a four-point Likert scale. Clinical observations were made to identify influencing factors.

RESULTS

Median values for patient experiences across procedures were 10 (range 5-10) for patient satisfaction, 2 (0-9) for pain and 8 (0-10) for comfort. Generalized estimating equations revealed no significant differences between urologists, senior residents and junior residents in terms of experienced patient comfort, satisfaction or pain. Procedural time was longer for residents, but this did not correlate significantly with patient-experienced comfort (p = 0.3). In UCS, patient comfort and satisfaction were higher in the supine position for male and female patients, respectively (p < 0.01). In TRUSP, local anaesthesia resulted in a significant decrease in pain (p = 0.002) and an increase in comfort (p = 0.03). Finally, older patients experienced less pain and gave higher comfort and satisfaction responses than younger patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients expressed high levels of satisfaction and comfort during diagnostic urological procedures. Experiences were not affected by the level of training, suggesting highly developed interpersonal and communication skills for residents in an early stage of residency training. Patients demonstrated significant preferences for local anaesthesia in TRUSP and performance of UCS in the supine position over the lithotomy position.

Patient Safety Risks of Basic Urological Procedures Performed by Junior and Senior Residents

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the current performance of urological residents regarding basic urological procedures in relation to patient safety issues and the identification of specific training needs.

DESIGN

Observational data of 146 urethrocystoscopies (UCSs), 27 transrectal ultrasounds of the prostate (TRUSs), 38 transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsies (TRUSPs), and 30 transurethral resections of bladder tumor (TURBTs) were collected. Performance was evaluated using scoring lists including details on completeness of procedural steps, level of independence, time, and the incidence of unintended events. The causal factors contributing to the unintended events were identified by 2 expert urologists and classified according to the recognized PRISMA method.

SETTING

This study was performed in 5 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

We included 11 junior residents and 5 senior residents in urology in the final study cohort.

RESULTS

Senior residents showed a lower degree of completeness in material usage than junior residents did during UCS (p < 0.01) and in preparation, material usage, and procedure during TRUSP (all p < 0.05). In UCS and TURBT, senior residents received significantly less feedback than junior residents did (both p < 0.01). Incidence of unintended events for junior vs senior residents was 11% and 4% in UCS, 0% and 7% in transrectal ultrasound of the prostate, 36% and 62% in TRUSP, and 41% and 23% in TURBT, respectively. Overall, unintended events were mainly caused by human factors, in particular, verification and skills-based issues.

CONCLUSION

Present performance of basic urological procedures involves a high percentage of unintended events, especially in TRUSP and TURBT, which are mainly caused by human factors and are a potential threat for patient safety. Junior residents are less independent but more thorough in the performance of UCS and TRUSP than senior residents are. Targeted skills training including assessment should be implemented before privileges for independent practice are granted to reduce the incidence of unintended events and optimize patient safety.