Highly effective prophylaxis with ertapenem for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: effects on overall antibiotic use and inpatient hospital exposure

Trends and variation in prostate cancer diagnosis via transperineal biopsy in Australia and New Zealand

BACKGROUND

To describe changes in the use of prostate biopsy techniques among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Australia and New Zealand and examine factors associated with these changes.

METHODS

We extracted data between 2015 and 2019 from 7 jurisdictions of the Australia and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR-ANZ). Distribution and time trend of transrectal (TR) vs. transperineal (TP) biopsy type, differences in the proportion of biopsy type by geographic jurisdiction, diagnosing institute characteristics (public vs. private, metropolitan vs. regional, case volume) and patient characteristics such as socio-economic status (SES), and location of residence were analyzed.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 37,638 patients. The overall proportion of prostate cancer diagnosed by TP increased from 26% to 57% between 2015 and 2019. Patients living in a major city, a more socioeconomically advantaged area or who were diagnosed in a metropolitan or private hospital were more likely to have TP than TR. While all subgroups were observed to increase their use of TP over the study period, uptake grew faster for men from low SES areas and those diagnosed at a regional or low-volume hospital but slower for men living in outer regional/remote areas or treated at a public hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

In this binational registry, prostate cancer is now more commonly diagnosed by TP than the TR approach. While the gap between uptakes of TP has diminished for patients with low vs. high SES, disparity has widened for patients from outer regional areas vs major cities and public vs. private hospitals.

Should Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Be the Standard of Care?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of transperineal prostate biopsy (TP-bx) to evaluate its potential role as the standard of care for prostate biopsy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have suggested no difference in prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate between TP-bx and transrectal biopsy (TR-bx) but have suggested potentially increased detection of anterior prostate tumors. Advances in anesthetic technique have obviated the need for sedation thus allowing TP-bx to become an office-based procedure, which in turn can decrease the overall cost of TP-bx. Furthermore, given the low rate of infectious complications after TP-bx, some have foregone peri-procedural antibiotics without a change in the rate of infectious complications. Recent procedural advances have made TP-bx a tolerable, office-based procedure. Given the similar diagnostic performance and the benefits for the patient and community, TP-bx should become the standard of care for prostate biopsy for most patients. Future efforts should address the barriers for more universal adoption.

Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy Should Continue to Be a Standard of Care for The Detection of Prostate Cancer

For men choosing to screen for prostate cancer (PCa), biopsy remains critical for diagnosis. While transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy has been the standard of care for many years, recent concerns regarding post-procedural infection have led to increased interest in prostatic sampling via the transperineal (TP) approach. However, TRUS biopsy features important patient-related and physician/practice-related advantages compared to the TP method, and there are several useful strategies to effectively mitigate infectious concerns. The benefits associated with TRUS biopsy, particularly patient comfort and efficient clinical workflow, are further accentuated by several key shortcomings associated with switching to the TP approach. Herein, we present an argument in favor of maintaining TRUS biopsy as standard practice, discussing significant topics including infectious complications, practice workflow and cost, cancer detection rates, and patient experience.

Effect of targeted prophylaxis with rectal swab on complications after prostate biopsy: prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

For diagnosis of prostate cancer, prostate biopsy accompanied by TRUS is the current method applied today.

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare targeted antibiotic prophylaxis, chosen according to rectal swab results before the procedure, with routinely administered prophylaxis and to investigate the effect on infective complications.

METHODS

The study included 140 patients with 12-quadrant prostate biopsy accompanied by TRUS in our hospital from 2018 to 2020. The first group had antibiotherapy prophylaxis administered according to the results of rectal swabs before the procedure. The second group had routine ciprofloxacin prophylaxis administered. Patients were followed prospectively for 1 month after the procedure.

RESULTS

When the mean age, systemic diseases and distribution in both groups are examined, there was no significant difference observed. Fever (> 38.5 °C) was observed in 3 patients in the rectal swab group (4.3%), while it was identified in 10 people in the control group (14.1%) (p = 0.047). Major complications were observed in 3 people in the rectal swab group (4.3%) and in 7 people in the control group (9.9%) (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study identified that routine administration of targeted antibiotic prophylaxis may be more effective in preventing infective complications compared to standard prophylaxis. Targeted prophylaxis is recommended for risky patients in the guidelines. However, the lack of difference between the groups in terms of age and comorbidities supports the need to administer targeted prophylaxis not just to risky patients but as well as routine practice.