Comparison of pain levels in fusion prostate biopsy and standard TRUS-Guided biopsy

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Demirtaş,Abdullah
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Sönmez,Gökhan, Tombul,Şevket Tolga, Demirtaş,Türev
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