The eternal enigma in prostatic biopsy access route

Current Approach to Complications and Difficulties during Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsies

Prostate cancer is one of the most common male malignancies worldwide. It affects middle-aged men (45-60 years) and is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in Western countries. The TRUS (trans rectal ultrasound)-guided prostate biopsy has been a standard procedure in prostate cancer detection for more than thirty years, and it is recommended in male patients with an abnormal PSA (prostate-specific antigens) or abnormalities found during digital rectal examinations. During this procedure, urologists might encounter difficulties which may cause subsequent complications. This manuscript aims to present both the complications and the technical difficulties that may occur during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, along with resolutions and solutions found in the specialized literature. The conclusions of this manuscript will note that the TRUS-guided prostate biopsy remains a solid, cost-efficient, and safe procedure with which to diagnose prostate cancer. The complications are usually self-limiting and do not require additional medical assistance. The difficulties posed by the procedure can be safely overcome if there are no other available alternatives. Open communication with the patients improves both pre- and post-procedure compliance.

Needle Biopsy Adequacy in the Era of Precision Medicine and Value-Based Health Care

CONTEXT.—

Needle biopsy of diseased tissue is an essential diagnostic tool that is becoming even more important as precision medicine develops. However, the capability of this modality to efficiently provide samples adequate for diagnostic and prognostic analysis remains quite limited relative to current diagnostic needs. For physicians and patients, inadequate biopsy frequently leads to diagnostic delay, procedure duplication, or insufficient information about tumor biology leading to delay in treatment; for health systems, this results in substantial incremental costs and inefficient use of scarce specialized diagnostic resources.

OBJECTIVE.—

To review current needle biopsy technology, devices, and practice with a perspective to identify current limitations and opportunities for improvement in the context of advancing precision medicine.

DATA SOURCES.—

PubMed searches of fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy devices and similar technologies were made generally, by tissue site, and by adequacy as well as by health economics of these technologies.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Needle biopsy adequacy can be improved by recognizing the importance of this diagnostic tool by promoting common criteria for needle biopsy adequacy; by optimizing needle biopsy procedural technique, technologies, clinical practice, professional education, and quality assurance; and by bundling biopsy procedure costs with downstream diagnostic modalities to provide better accountability and incentives to improve the diagnostic process.

Developing a five-step training model for transperineal prostate biopsies in a naïve residents' group: a prospective observational randomised study of two different techniques

PURPOSE

To evaluate a five-step training model for transperineal prostate biopsies (TPPB) and the differences in terms of the detection rate (DR) and the ease of execution when using either the "fan technique" (FT) or the use of a Free Hand technique (FH).

METHODS

A prospective observational randomised study was conducted from September 2015 to November 2017. Six naïve residents, who underwent the same five-steps training model, were randomly subdivided into two different groups of three residents based on the selected TPPB technique: A (FT) and B (FH). Patient characteristics (age, PSA, prostatic volume, DRE, MRI), intraoperative (operative time, number of samples) and postoperative parameters (histologic, pain) were evaluated in the 2 groups. The overall and stratified DR for PSA ranges and prostate volume (PV), operative time and complications were compared.

RESULTS

The overall detection rate was very high in both groups (FT 58.2% vs FH 59.6%) and not statistically different between the two techniques. There were no differences in terms of complication rates and pain. The FH showed a better detection rate in prostates smaller than 40 cc (p = 0.023) and a faster operative time (p = 0.025) compared to FT.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the TPPB, FH is associated with a higher detection rate in patients with prostate < 40 cc compared to an FT when performed by inexperienced trainees. Standardised training organised in consecutive steps seems to contribute to the achievement of overall high detection rates with both methods.