Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | International Braz J Urol (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382020000400557 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT Objectives Fusion prostate biopsy (FPB) has recently emerged as a popular and successful biopsy technique on diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the pain levels in TRUS-guided standard 12-core prostate biopsy (SPB) and MpMRI-guided FPB. Materials and Methods Patients detected with a PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) ≥3 lesion on MpMRI underwent MpMRI-guided FPB (Group I) and the patients who had no suspected lesions or had a PI-RADS <3 lesion on MpMRI underwent TRUS-guided SPB (Group II). Pain assessment was performed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) five minutes after the procedure. Following the procedure, the patients were asked to indicate the most painful biopsy step among the three steps. Results 252 patients were included in this study (Group I=159, Group II=93). The mean number of cores and the malignancy detection rate were significantly higher in Group I compared to Group II (p <0.001, p=0.043, respectively). No significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to VAS scores (p=0.070). The most painful part of the whole procedure was revealed to be the insertion of the probe into the rectum. However, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the most painful biopsy step (p=0.140). Conclusion FPB, with a relatively higher cancer detection rate, leads to the same pain level as SPB although it increases the number of biopsy cores and involves a more complex procedure compared to SPB. Further prospective studies with larger patient series are needed to substantiate our findings. |
id |
SBU-1_6cdebfe38520baf78ddc89d796f38384 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1677-55382020000400557 |
network_acronym_str |
SBU-1 |
network_name_str |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsyProstateBiopsyPainABSTRACT Objectives Fusion prostate biopsy (FPB) has recently emerged as a popular and successful biopsy technique on diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the pain levels in TRUS-guided standard 12-core prostate biopsy (SPB) and MpMRI-guided FPB. Materials and Methods Patients detected with a PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) ≥3 lesion on MpMRI underwent MpMRI-guided FPB (Group I) and the patients who had no suspected lesions or had a PI-RADS <3 lesion on MpMRI underwent TRUS-guided SPB (Group II). Pain assessment was performed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) five minutes after the procedure. Following the procedure, the patients were asked to indicate the most painful biopsy step among the three steps. Results 252 patients were included in this study (Group I=159, Group II=93). The mean number of cores and the malignancy detection rate were significantly higher in Group I compared to Group II (p <0.001, p=0.043, respectively). No significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to VAS scores (p=0.070). The most painful part of the whole procedure was revealed to be the insertion of the probe into the rectum. However, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the most painful biopsy step (p=0.140). Conclusion FPB, with a relatively higher cancer detection rate, leads to the same pain level as SPB although it increases the number of biopsy cores and involves a more complex procedure compared to SPB. Further prospective studies with larger patient series are needed to substantiate our findings.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2020-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382020000400557International braz j urol v.46 n.4 2020reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0154info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessDemirtaş,AbdullahSönmez,GökhanTombul,Şevket TolgaDemirtaş,Türeveng2020-05-28T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382020000400557Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2020-05-28T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy |
title |
Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy |
spellingShingle |
Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy Demirtaş,Abdullah Prostate Biopsy Pain |
title_short |
Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy |
title_full |
Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy |
title_sort |
Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy |
author |
Demirtaş,Abdullah |
author_facet |
Demirtaş,Abdullah Sönmez,Gökhan Tombul,Şevket Tolga Demirtaş,Türev |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Sönmez,Gökhan Tombul,Şevket Tolga Demirtaş,Türev |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Demirtaş,Abdullah Sönmez,Gökhan Tombul,Şevket Tolga Demirtaş,Türev |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Prostate Biopsy Pain |
topic |
Prostate Biopsy Pain |
description |
ABSTRACT Objectives Fusion prostate biopsy (FPB) has recently emerged as a popular and successful biopsy technique on diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the pain levels in TRUS-guided standard 12-core prostate biopsy (SPB) and MpMRI-guided FPB. Materials and Methods Patients detected with a PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) ≥3 lesion on MpMRI underwent MpMRI-guided FPB (Group I) and the patients who had no suspected lesions or had a PI-RADS <3 lesion on MpMRI underwent TRUS-guided SPB (Group II). Pain assessment was performed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) five minutes after the procedure. Following the procedure, the patients were asked to indicate the most painful biopsy step among the three steps. Results 252 patients were included in this study (Group I=159, Group II=93). The mean number of cores and the malignancy detection rate were significantly higher in Group I compared to Group II (p <0.001, p=0.043, respectively). No significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to VAS scores (p=0.070). The most painful part of the whole procedure was revealed to be the insertion of the probe into the rectum. However, no significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to the most painful biopsy step (p=0.140). Conclusion FPB, with a relatively higher cancer detection rate, leads to the same pain level as SPB although it increases the number of biopsy cores and involves a more complex procedure compared to SPB. Further prospective studies with larger patient series are needed to substantiate our findings. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-08-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382020000400557 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382020000400557 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0154 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
International braz j urol v.46 n.4 2020 reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) instacron:SBU |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) |
instacron_str |
SBU |
institution |
SBU |
reponame_str |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
collection |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br |
_version_ |
1750318077604528128 |