Formalin disinfection of biopsy needle minimizes the risk of sepsis following prostate biopsy

Does Formalin Disinfection Reduce Bacterial Colonization of Biopsy Needle? A Prospective Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of formalin disinfection of the needle tip in transrectal prostate biopsy (TRB) procedure to reduce infectious complications. The primary aim is to assess the impact of formalin on bacterial contamination of biopsy needle tips and its association with post-biopsy infective events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We have employed a bacterial culture-based observational cohort design in this study. Two groups, formalin disinfection and non-formalin group, both underwent systematic 12-core TRB. In the formalin group, the biopsy needle tip was immersed in 10% formalin solution after each core, while in the non-formalin group, no formalin solution immersion was used. The primary outcomes include bacterial growth on biopsy needle tips and post-biopsy infective events.

RESULTS

Formalin disinfection significantly reduced bacterial growth on needle tips (P <.001). The formalin group had no post-biopsy infections or sepsis, while the non-formalin group experienced a 7.5% infective event rate after TRB.

CONCLUSION

Formalin disinfection of biopsy needle tip significantly reduces bacterial growth on biopsy needle and urinary tract infectious complications developed secondary to TRB. Further multicenter randomized controlled studies with larger cohorts are warranted to validate and establish formalin disinfection as a routine practice in TRB procedures.

Prostate biopsy sepsis prevention: external validation of an alcohol needle washing protocol

PURPOSE

Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) is associated with a 1-8% risk of post-biopsy sepsis (PBS). A recent study described an isopropyl alcohol needle washing protocol that significantly decreased PBS rates. The current study examined the efficacy of this technique in our clinic population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were reviewed for 1250 consecutive patients undergoing TRUS-Bx at the Charlie Norwood VA Medical Center from January 2017 to January 2023. Needle washing was adopted in February 2021. Complications occurring within 30 days after TRUS-Bx were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 912 patients in group 1 (without needle washing) and 338 in group 2 (with needle washing). Groups had equivalent demographic features, and men of African descent comprised 70% of patients. Standard 12 core biopsies were done in 83% and 82% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.788). Total complication rates were 4% and 2% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.077). There were 13 sepsis events in group 1 (1.4%) and none in group 2 (p = 0.027). Clavien-Dindo Grade I-III complications occurred in 25 (2.7%) and 7 (2.1%) patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.505). Standard antibiotic prophylaxis (PO fluoroquinolone and IM gentamicin) was given in 80% and 86% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.030). Subset analysis limited to patients who received standard prophylaxis showed a significant difference in sepsis rates (1.5% vs 0%; p = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of isopropyl alcohol needle washing was associated with a significant decrease in PBS events.

Nonantibiotic strategies to decrease the postbiopsy hospitalization rates because of infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of biopsy needle disinfection with 10% formalin solution alone and with povidone-iodine rectal cleaning on preventing infectious complications requiring hospitalization.

METHODS

The data of 902 patients who underwent prostate biopsy by transrectal route were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were prophylactic antibiotic use and negative urine culture before the biopsy. Three groups occurred according to the methods used during the biopsy procedure. In Group 1, 501 patients, biopsy needle disinfection was made using 10% formalin solution during the biopsy procedure. Group 2, 164 patients, applied only prophylactic antibiotics. Group 3, 237 patients, applied both 10% formalin disinfection of the biopsy needle and prebiopsy povidone-iodine rectal cleansing. Hospitalized patients because of infectious complications a month after the biopsy were our outcome measures.

RESULTS

Hospitalization rates because of biopsy-related infectious complications, according to Groups 1, 2, and 3, were 2.7%, 8.5%, and 0%, respectively. The best results were observed in Group 3 and the worst in Group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The two nonantibiotic strategies, biopsy needle disinfection with formalin solution and rectal cleaning with povidone-iodine, look more effective when applied together. However, further prospective studies are required to confirm our analysis.

Utilizing a Questionnaire to Implement a Risk-based Antibiotic Prophylaxis Protocol for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate a risk-based antibiotic prophylaxis protocol for patients undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy.

METHODS

We created a risk-based protocol for antibiotic prophylaxis before transrectal prostate biopsy. Patients were screened for infection risk-factors with a self-administered questionnaire. The protocol was implemented from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020. We compared patient risk-factors, antibiotic regimens, and 30-day infection rates for patients undergoing transrectal prostate biopsies during the intervention and for a 3-month period before the intervention.

RESULTS

There were 116 prostate biopsies in the preintervention group and 104 in the intervention group. Although there was no significant difference in the number of high-risk patients between the 2 groups (48% vs 55%; P = .33), the percentage of patients treated with augmented prophylaxis decreased from 74% to 45% (P = 0.03). The duration of antibiotic administration and the median number of doses prescribed also decreased significantly. Despite significant decreases in antibiotic use, there were no differences in infection rates (5% vs 5%; P = .90) or sepsis rates (1% vs 2%; P = .60).

CONCLUSION

We developed a risk-based protocol for prophylactic antibiotics before prostate biopsy. The protocol was associated with less antibiotic use but did not lead to an increase in infectious complications.

The effect of povidone-iodine rectal cleansing on post-biopsy infectious complications

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of pre-biopsy povidone-iodine rectal cleansing on post-biopsy hospitalization rates due to prostate biopsy-related infectious complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, we reviewed 552 patients who underwent ultrasonography-guided transrectal prostate biopsy between 2014 and 2022. Group 1, 361 patients (January 2014-October 2020) were not applied povidone-iodine rectal cleansing, and group 2, 191 patients (November 2020-January 2022) were applied povidone-iodine rectal cleansing since we changed our biopsy protocol. All patients were given the same antibiotic prophylaxis, ciprofloxacin 500 mg, and ornidazole 500 mg twice daily starting 24 h before the biopsy and lasting a total of 5 days. Sodium phosphate enema was applied to all patients in the biopsy morning. The outcome was the hospitalization rates of patients because of infectious complications a month after the biopsy.

RESULTS

No patients were hospitalized in the povidone-iodine rectal cleansing group because of biopsy related complications. The hospitalization rate of group 1 was 3% and there was a statistical difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

The povidone-iodine solution is cheap, safe and easy to apply. The povidone-iodine rectal cleansing method seems to decrease infectious complications related to prostate biopsy procedure, but we need a randomized controlled trial to confirm our study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

We got permission for this retrospective study from the Karabuk university ethics council with the number 2021/649 on 1 October 2021.

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.

Minimizing transrectal prostate biopsy-related infections; A prospective randomized trial of povidone-iodine intrarectal cleaning versus formalin needle disinfection

INTRODUCTION

Transrectal prostate biopsies are associated with post biopsy infection and sepsis. We compared the efficacy of povidone-iodine rectal disinfection versus formalin needle disinfection in preventing post biopsy infection among patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo ultrasound-guided transrectal prostate biopsy (n = 621) over 20 months were randomized into 2 groups to receive either povidone-iodine intrarectal disinfection or formalin disinfection of needle after each core. These were compared to assess which methodology better prevented postprocedure infection. Statistical analysis were used to identify independent factors promoting infections.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-eight patients from povidone-iodine intrarectal disinfection were compared with 300 from formalin needle disinfection group. Formalin needle disinfection was associated with significantly more infections (P = 0.02). Escherichia coli was the dominant pathogen, with >50% of cases being quinolone resistant. Type of disinfection (P = 0.002), BMI (P = 0.001), chronic prostatitis (P = 0.002), and diabetes mellitus (P = 0.01) were independent predictors of infections. BMI at 28.95 kg/m2 provided the best predictive cut-off point for infections, irrespective of method of disinfection. Area under the curve for all these parameters together was 0.91.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that along with oral cephalosporin prophylaxis, povidone-iodine intrarectal disinfection is a superior to formalin needle disinfection alone in preventing post biopsy infection. Patients with BMI >28.95 kg/m2 should be considered at a higher risk for infections.

Infectious complications of prostate biopsy: winning battles but not war

BACKGROUND

Prostate biopsy is a standard tool for diagnosing prostate cancer, with more than 4 million procedures performed worldwide each year. Infectious complications and economic burden are reportedly rising with continued use of trans-rectal ultrasound-guided biopsy, despite the transperineal approach being associated with less infectious complications.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

In this review, the contemporary literature on pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors, causative organisms and emerging approaches for prevention of infectious complications are outlined.

RESULTS

Management of infectious complications after TRUSB has caused significant financial burden on health systems. The most frequent causative agents of infectious complications after prostate biopsy are Gram-negative bacilli are particularly concerning in the era of antibiotic resistance. Increasing resistance to fluoroquinolones and beta-lactam antibiotics has complicated traditional preventive measures. Patient- and procedure-related risk factors, reported by individual studies, can contribute to infectious complications after prostate biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent literature shows that the transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy results in higher infectious complication rate than the transperineal prostate biopsy. NAATs, recently introduced technique to detect FQr may detect all antibiotic-resistant rectal microbiota members-included MDRs-although the technique still has limitations and economical burdens. Transient solutions are escalating antibiotic prophylaxis and widening the indications for TPB.

Update on techniques to prevent infections associated with prostate needle biopsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postbiopsy infections (PBIs) are among the most common complications associated with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB). This article discusses the pathogenesis of TRUSPB-associated infectious complications and reviews the most recent findings on techniques to prevent PBIs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Risk stratification is a powerful tool for identifying TRUSPB candidates whom warrant additional preventive measures. Bowel preparation with povidone-iodine-based enemas and needle disinfection with formalin solution are simple and attractive strategies, but their effectiveness needs to be thoroughly assessed. Antibiotic prophylaxis represents the mainstay for the prevention of PBIs: the prophylactic regimen must respect the principles of antimicrobial stewardship, and local antibiotic resistance patterns among uropathogens should always be considered. Augmented and targeted antibiotic prophylaxes are powerful options, but their role in current clinical practice has yet to be clarified. The transperineal approach has shown a near-zero rate of PBIs, and should therefore be considered for the highest-risk patients.

SUMMARY

Several procedures have been introduced to prevent TRUSPB-related infectious complication, but their utility and applicability in the clinical practice has yet to be elucidated. More robust evidence based on randomized control trials is needed to establish the efficacy of these tools in improving patient outcomes.

Quality of care and economic considerations of active surveillance of men with prostate cancer

The current health care climate mandates the delivery of high-value care for patients considering active surveillance for newly-diagnosed prostate cancer. Value is defined by increasing benefits (e.g., quality) for acceptable costs. This review discusses quality of care considerations for men contemplating active surveillance, and highlights cost implications at the patient, health-system, and societal level related to pursuit of non-interventional management of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. In general, most quality measures are focused on prostate cancer care in general, rather that active surveillance patients specifically. However, most prostate cancer quality measures are pertinent to men seeking close observation of their prostate tumors with active surveillance. These include accurate documentation of clinical stage, informed discussion of all treatment options, and appropriate use of imaging for less-aggressive prostate cancer. Furthermore, interventions that may help improve the quality of care for active surveillance patients are reviewed (e.g., quality collaboratives, judicious antibiotic use, etc.). Finally, the potential economic impact and benefits of broad acceptance of active surveillance strategies are highlighted.

Chemoprophylaxis during transrectal prostate needle biopsy: critical analysis through randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of three chemoprophylaxis approaches in prevention of post-transrectal biopsy infectious complications (TBICs).

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive ciprofloxacin 3 days 500 mg B.I.D 3 days starting the night prior to biopsy (standard prophylaxis), augmented prophylaxis using ciprofloxacin and single preprocedure shot of 160 mg gentamicin IM (augmented prophylaxis) and rectal swab culture-based prophylaxis (targeted prophylaxis). Patients were assessed 2 weeks prior to biopsy, at biopsy and 2 weeks after. Primary end point was occurrence of post-TBICs that included simple UTI, febrile UTI or sepsis. Secondary end points were post-biopsy change in the inflammatory markers (TLC, ESR and CRP), unplanned visits, hospitalization and occurrence of fluoroquinolones resistance (FQ-R; bacterial growth on MacConkey agar plate with 10 μg/ml ciprofloxacin) in the fecal carriage of screened men.

RESULTS

Between April/2015 and January/2017, standard, augmented and targeted prophylaxes were given to 163, 166 and 167 patients, respectively. Post-TBICs were reported in 43 (26%), 13 (7.8%) and 34 (20.3%) patients following standard, augmented and targeted prophylaxes protocols, respectively (P = 0.000). Post-TBICs included UTI in 23 (4.6%), febrile UTI in 41 (8.2%) and sepsis in 26 (5.2%) patients. Significantly lower number of post-biopsy positive urine culture was depicted in the augmented group (P = 0.000). The number of biopsy cores was statistically different in the three groups (P = 0.004). On multivariate analysis, augmented prophylaxis had independently lower post-TBICs (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.4, P = 0.000) when compared with the other two groups regardless of the number of biopsy cores taken (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95-1.17, P = 0.229). Post-biopsy hospitalization was needed in four (2%), one (0.6%) and ten (6%) patients following standard, augmented and targeted prophylaxes, respectively (P = 0.014). However, sepsis-related hospitalization was not statistically different. Post-biopsy changes in the inflammatory markers were significantly less in augmented prophylaxis (P < 0.05). FQ-R was depicted in 139 (83.2%) of the screened men.

CONCLUSION

Augmented prophylaxis with single-dose gentamicin is an effective and practical approach. Targeted prophylaxis might be reserved for cases with contraindication to gentamicin.

Reduced Risk of Sepsis after Prostate Biopsy Using a Cephalosporin-Fluoroquinolone Antibiotic Regimen and Isopropyl Alcohol Needle Washing

OBJECTIVE

To compare 3 prophylactic regimens to assess their impact on postbiopsy sepsis incidence.

METHODS

Data were reviewed for 829 consecutive patients who underwent prostate biopsy in a community practice setting between January 2013 and October 2017. Group 1 patients received ciprofloxacin 500 mg two times a day orally for 4 days starting the day prior to biopsy and gentamicin 80 mg intramuscularly 20 minutes prior to biopsy. From April 2015 to October 2017, 2 groups of patients were followed in parallel in a randomized manner. Group 2 received ciprofloxacin 500 mg two times a day orally for 4 days starting the day prior to biopsy and ceftriaxone 1 g intramuscularly 20 minutes prior to biopsy. Group 3 received the same antibiotic regimen as group 2 and also underwent isopropyl alcohol needle washing.

RESULTS

All study groups were demographically equivalent. Microscopic bacterial counts were substantially decreased after isopropyl alcohol needle washing. Incidence of postbiopsy sepsis in groups 1 (n = 313), 2 (n = 259), and 3 (n = 257) was 3.8%, 2%, and 0%, respectively (analysis of variance; P = .006). Risk factors for sepsis included elevated body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Score, and presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant reduction in the incidence of sepsis after prostate biopsy using a combination of a ciprofloxacin-ceftriaxone antibiotic regimen and isopropyl alcohol needle washing. The technique for needle washing is inexpensive and quick, and can be easily adopted into current biopsy protocols.

Outbreak of Achromobacter xylosoxidans and Ochrobactrum anthropi Infections after Prostate Biopsies, France, 2014

We report an outbreak of healthcare-associated prostatitis involving rare environmental pathogens in immunocompetent patients undergoing transrectal prostate biopsies at Hôpital Édouard Herriot (Lyon, France) during August 13-October 10, 2014. Despite a fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis, 5 patients were infected with Achromobacter xylosoxidans and 3 with Ochrobactrum anthropi, which has not been reported as pathogenic in nonimmunocompromised persons. All patients recovered fully. Analysis of the outbreak included case investigation, case-control study, biopsy procedure review, microbiologic testing of environmental and clinical samples, and retrospective review of hospital records for 4 years before the outbreak. The cases resulted from asepsis errors during preparation of materials for the biopsies. A low-level outbreak involving environmental bacteria was likely present for years, masked by antimicrobial drug prophylaxis and a low number of cases. Healthcare personnel should promptly report unusual pathogens in immunocompetent patients to infection control units, and guidelines should explicitly mention asepsis during materials preparation.

Evaluation of a needle disinfectant technique to reduce infection-related hospitalisation after transrectal prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a needle disinfectant step during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalisation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all TRUS-guided prostate biopsies taken across the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) from January 2012 to March 2015. Natural variation in technique allowed us to evaluate for differences in infection-related hospitalisations based on whether or not a needle disinfectant technique was used. The disinfectant technique was an intra-procedural step to cleanse the biopsy needle with antibacterial solution after each core was sampled (i.e., 10% formalin or 70% isopropyl alcohol). After grouping biopsies according to whether or not the procedure included a needle disinfectant step, we compared the rate of infection-related hospitalisations within 30 days of biopsy. Generalised estimating equation models were fit to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

During the evaluated period, 17 954 TRUS-guided prostate biopsies were taken with 5 321 (29.6%) including a disinfectant step. The observed rate of infection-related hospitalisation was lower when a disinfectant technique was used during biopsy (0.60% vs 0.90%; P = 0.04). After accounting for differences between groups the adjusted hospitalisation rate in the disinfectant group was 0.85% vs 1.12% in the no disinfectant group (adjusted odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.50-1.15; P = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational analysis, hospitalisations for infectious complications were less common when the TRUS-guided prostate biopsy included a needle disinfection step. However, after adjusting for potential confounders the effect of needle disinfection was not statistically significant. Prospective evaluation is warranted to determine if this step provides a scalable and effective method to minimise infectious complications.

Drug-Eluting Biopsy Needle as a Novel Strategy for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Transrectal Prostate Biopsy

Objectives:

To preclinically evaluate drug-eluting biopsy needles (patent pending WO2016118026) as a new potential way of antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy.

Methods:

Twenty steel biopsy needles have been coated with polyvinyl alcohol, ciprofloxacin, and amikacin. Modified biopsy needles have been randomly divided into 3 groups (1:2:1 ratio). Needles from group I were immersed for 30 minutes in dedicated test tubes containing saline. Needles from group II were immersed (one by one) for 5 seconds in a set of 12 test tubes containing saline. Then, each solution was analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography. The results were compared with the susceptibility break points for Escherichia coli. Group III was incubated with E coli strains on Mueller-Hinton plate and then the bacterial inhibition zones surrounding needles were measured.

Results:

The average concentration of antibiotics eluted from needles (group I) was 361.98 ± 15.36 µg/mL for amikacin and 63.87 ± 5.95 µg/mL for ciprofloxacin. The chromatographic analysis revealed the gradual release of both antibiotics from needles (group II). The concentration of amikacin released from needles exceeded the break-point value from first to ninth immersion. Ciprofloxacin concentration was higher than break-point value in all immersions. The average bacterial inhibition zone minor axis was 42 ± 5.7 mm (group III).

Conclusions:

The use of drug-eluting biopsy needle could be a new potential way of antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. This study confirmed its biological activity as well as the gradual release of antibiotics from its surface. Confirmation of its preventive role, in terms of infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy, has to be evaluated in a clinical trial.

Transperineal vs. transrectal biopsy in MRI targeting

Prostate biopsy is typically performed via either the transrectal or transperineal approach. MRI-targeted biopsy, whether using any of the three options of cognitive fusion, MRI-ultrasound fusion software, or in-bore MRI-guided biopsy, can also be performed via either transrectal or transperineal approaches. As an extension of traditional random prostate biopsy, the transrectal approach is far more commonly used for MRI-targeted biopsy due to its convenience. However, in the context of today’s increasing multi-drug resistance of rectal flora, the transperineal approach is being used more often due to its lack of septic complications. In addition, only a first-generation cephalosporin, not a fluoroquinolone, is required as antibiotic prophylaxis. Evidence shows excellent detection rates of significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and/or systematic transperineal biopsy (TPB). However, there are no head-to-head studies comparing the different MRI-targeted methods within TPB. To provide truly patient-centred care, the biopsy technique using the safest method with the highest detection rate of significant cancer should be used. Depending on healthcare context and hospital resource utilization, MRI-targeted TPB is an excellent option and should be performed wherever available and feasible. Whilst building capacity for TPB in one’s practice, the routine use of rectal culture swabs prior to any transrectal biopsies is strongly encouraged. Independent of biopsy route, the addition of systematic cores needs to be discussed with the patient weighing maximal detection of significant cancer against increased detection of insignificant lesions.

Prevention of infectious complications after prostate biopsy procedure

Although febrile complications are rarely encountered after a prostate biopsy procedure, in recent years the number of cases of fatal infection after that have increased along with increases in resistant bacteria. The available biopsy approaches are transrectal and transperineal, with the transrectal approach primarily used. As the invasion path of the puncture needle differs between these approaches, pretreatment and the method of administration of preventive antimicrobial drugs should be separately considered for infection prevention. Recently, the Japanese guidelines for perioperative infection prevention in the field of urology were revised after receiving approval from the Japanese Urological Association. With use of the transrectal approach, attempts have been made to selectively administer prophylactic antibiotics by confirming the presence or absence of resistant bacteria in rectal swab culture results before carrying out a prostate biopsy procedure because of potential problems associated with resistant bacteria in rectal flora. For preventive antibiotics, a single dose of oral quinolone is recommended for patients with low risk, whereas daily administrations of piperacillin/tazobactam are recommended for those considered to be high risk. In contrast, for the transperineal procedure, a single dose of oral quinolone is recommended as a preventive antibiotic. With both approaches, it is important to empirically administer broad-spectrum antimicrobials when occurrence of a febrile infection after a prostate biopsy procedure is confirmed.

Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in the era of increasing fluoroquinolone resistance: prophylaxis with single-dose ertapenem

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to compare single-dose ertapenem (ERT) with the 3-day regime of ciprofloxacin (CIP) for prophylaxis of possible infections following transrectal prostate biopsy.

METHODS

Data from a consecutive group of 542 patients from January 2012 to January 2017 were retrospectively analysed. As preinterventional prophylaxis patient group A (179) received 500 mg CIP twice a day for three days, beginning on the day before the biopsy (until June 2013); group B (363) received a single dose of ERT 60 min prior to intervention. The first follow-up examination for all patients was between post-intervention days 2 and 3. The second follow-up examination was between day 15 and 30 following biopsy. Urine was cultured in all cases and any adverse drug reactions (ADRs) related to the antibiotic treatment were noted. We also recorded all clinically relevant morbidities requiring intervention (ischuria, macrohaematuria, symptomatic urinary tract infections and urosepsis), as well as those not requiring active intervention (macrohaematuria, decreased urinary stream, pain, haemospermia). The main study criterion was the symptomatic urinary tract infection rate and ADRs.

RESULTS

All 542 biopsied patients could be included in the study and the drop-out rate was zero. There were no significant differences between groups A and B with regards to complications not requiring intervention. There was, however, a significant reduction from 14.5% (group A) to 0.8% (group B) in infectious complications. This showed a significant correlation in favour of ERT (p < 0.001). Furthermore, in the ERT group there was also a distinct and significant reduction (p > 0.001) in the number of patients with bacteriuria (>10e4 cfu per ml urine) without fever (0.5%) compared to the CIP group (12.3%).

CONCLUSION

A single-dose of 1 g of intravenous ERT applied 1 h before a scheduled transrectal prostate biopsy is a safe option and provides effective protection against infection-related complications arising from surgery.

Dutasteride is associated with reduced risk of transrectal prostate biopsy-associated urinary tract infection and related hospitalizations

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the use of dutasteride is associated with a lower risk of transrectal prostate biopsy-associated urinary tract infection (TPBA-UTI) among men in the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) study.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 6045 men undergoing 2-year repeat prostate biopsy in REDUCE. Participants were randomized to receive dutasteride 0.5 mg or placebo daily. TPBA-UTI was defined as the presence of urinary symptoms and the prescription of antibiotics by the treating physician within 30 days after biopsy. Severe TPBA-UTI was defined as TPBA-UTI requiring hospitalization. Comparison of TPBA-UTI between treatment arms was done using Chi-square test and logistic regression adjusting for participant characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the subjects included in the study, 3067 (50.7%) were randomized to the placebo arm and 2978 (49.3%) to the dutasteride arm. A total 51 (0.8%) men had TPBA-UTI, including 38 (1.2%) in the placebo arm and 13 (0.4%) in the dutasteride arm (univariable relative risk [RR] = 0.35, P = 0.001; multivariable odds ratio [OR] = 0.34, P = 0.003). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one TPBA-UTI was 125 subjects. Of these, 14 (28%) had severe TPBA-UTI, including 12 (0.4%) in the placebo arm and only 2 (0.07%) in the dutasteride arm (univariable RR = 0.17, P = 0.021; multivariable OR = 0.17, P = 0.031). The NNT to prevent one severe TPBA-UTI was 309 subjects.

CONCLUSION

Among men undergoing a 2-year repeat prostate biopsy, the use of dutasteride for 2 years was associated with a reduced the risk of overall and severe TBPA-UTI. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT00056407.

Formalin disinfection of prostate biopsy needles may reduce post-biopsy infectious complications

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine whether formalin disinfection of prostate biopsy needles between cores reduces post-biopsy urinary tract infections (UTIs).

METHODS

We reviewed a single-surgeon experience of transrectal prostate biopsies from 2010 to 2014. Biopsies were performed in either an operative suite, where 10% formalin was used to disinfect the needle tip between each biopsy core, or an outpatient clinic, where formalin was not used. Our primary outcome was post-biopsy UTI rates, defined as a positive urine culture within 30 days of biopsy. Infection severity was characterized by the need for admission. Patient demographics, prostate size, prior biopsies, prior UTIs, pre-biopsy antibiotics and cultures and post-biopsy cultures were analyzed. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of post-biopsy UTIs. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 756 patients were included for analysis, including 253 who received formalin disinfection and 503 who did not. Of these, 32 patients (4.2%) experienced post-biopsy UTIs, with 8 requiring admission (all without formalin use). Infection rates were more than double in the group that did not receive formalin (5.2% vs 2.3%, P=0.085). More patients in the formalin group had undergone prior biopsies (73.9% vs 31.8%, P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, prior UTI (odds ratio (OR) 3.77, P=0.006) was a significant predictor for post-biopsy infection, whereas formalin disinfection trended towards a protective effect (OR 0.41, P=0.055).

CONCLUSION

Infectious complications following prostate biopsy may be mitigated by the use of formalin disinfection of the biopsy needle between cores.

Cutting to the Core of the Issue: Emerging Strategies To Reduce Prostate Biopsy-Related Infections

Over 1 million men undergo biopsy in the United States each year to evaluate for prostate cancer (S. Loeb, H. B. Carter, S. I. Berndt, W. Ricker, and E. M. Schaeffer, J Urol 186:1830-1834, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.057). In recent years, there has been a rise in infectious complications related to these procedures. This review aims to provide an overview of the guidelines that direct transrectal prostate biopsy, to describe associated infection, and to evaluate the published data driving the current trend toward prebiopsy screening for resistant organisms.

Reducing Infectious Complications Following Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review

A rise in antimicrobial resistant uropathogens has generated a global increase in infections following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx). We performed a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE® and PubMed to comprehensively review strategies to mitigate infections. Of 1664 articles retrieved, 62 were included. The data suggest that augmented prophylaxis and povidone-iodine bowel preparation warrant consideration in regions with high rates of antimicrobial resistance. Transperineal biopsy may be a safer, equally effective alternative to TRUS-Bx in select cases. Recent international travel appears to increase patients' risk for experiencing infections. These findings can aid clinicians in minimizing post-TRUS-Bx infectious complications.

Strategies for prevention of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy infections

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in male patients and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in males. To confirm the diagnosis of prostate cancer, an ultrasound-guided needle biopsy is necessary to obtain prostate tissue sufficient for histologic analysis by pathologists. Ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy can be accomplished via a transperineal or transrectal approach. The latter biopsy technique involves placing an ultrasound probe into the rectum, visualizing the prostate located just anterior to it, and then obtaining 12-14 biopsies. Each biopsy core requires piercing of the rectal mucosa which can inherently contribute to infection. The increasing infectious risk of prostate needle biopsy requires refinement and re-evaluation of the process in which the technique is performed. Such processes include (but are not limited to) prebiopsy risk stratification, antibiotic prophylaxis, use of rectal preparations, and equipment processing. In the subsequent review, we highlight the current available information on different strategies to reduce the risk of infection following prostate needle biopsy.

Prevention of sepsis prior to prostate biopsy

Purpose

Urosepsis is the most feared complication of transrectal prostate biopsy. The incidence may be increasing from <1% to 2%–3% in contemporary series. Historically, fluoroquinolones have been effective antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infective complications but antibiotic resistance is increasing. The increase in antibiotic resistance may contribute to reported increases in urosepsis and hospitalization after transrectal biopsy. This article will review other methods clinicians may employ to reduce the incidence of infective complications after prostate biopsy.

Materials and Methods

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using literature databases PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE in August 2015 in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) criteria.

Results

Effective strategies to reduce infective complications after transrectal prostate biopsy include augmented prophylaxis with other antibiotics, rectal swab culture directed antibiotic prophylaxis or a transperineal biopsy approach. Needle disinfection, minimizing the number of biopsy needles and rectal disinfectants may also be of use. These methods may be of particular utility in patients with risk factors for developing urosepsis such as recent antibiotic use and overseas travel.

Conclusions

The scientific literature describes various techniques designed to reduce infective complications caused by prostate biopsy. Clinicians should consider incorporating these novel techniques into their contemporary practice.

Challenges and Opportunities in Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: A 2016 Update

Herein, both the rationale and scope of current initiatives aimed at improving the quality of cancer care delivery in the United States are described. First, we discuss a recent report from the Institute of Medicine that issued a strong call for both the development of quality measures in oncology and implementation of a learning health care system in which data and experience from clinical practice can inform continuous improvements in cancer care. Second, we review the multiple, diverse initiatives that are underway to identify, test, and validate quality measures for the entire spectrum of cancer care. Finally, we discuss regional quality improvement collaboratives as one successful approach to creating a cycle of quality measurement, identification of best practices, and implementation of changes in practice patterns that ultimately yield improved care and outcomes for patients with cancer.

The emerging threat of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in urology

Antibiotic resistance in Gram-negative uropathogens is a major global concern. Worldwide, the prevalence of Enterobacteriaceae that produce extended-spectrum β-lactamase or carbapenemase enzymes continues to increase at alarming rates. Likewise, resistance to other antimicrobial agents including aminoglycosides, sulphonamides and fluoroquinolones is also escalating rapidly. Bacterial resistance has major implications for urological practice, particularly in relation to catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs) and infectious complications following transrectal-ultrasonography-guided biopsy of the prostate or urological surgery. Although some new drugs with activity against Gram-negative bacteria with highly resistant phenotypes will become available in the near future, the existence of a single agent with activity against the great diversity of resistance is unlikely. Responding to the challenges of Gram-negative resistance will require a multifaceted approach including considered use of current antimicrobial agents, improved diagnostics (including the rapid detection of resistance) and surveillance, better adherence to basic measures of infection prevention, development of new antibiotics and research into non-antibiotic treatment and preventive strategies.

The real practice of antibiotic prophylaxis for prostate biopsy in Korea where the prevalence of quinolone-resistant Escherichia coli is high

Purpose

Transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) is an essential procedure for diagnosing prostate cancer. The American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline recommends fluoroquinolone alone for 1 day during TRUS-Bx. However, this recommendation may not be appropriate in regions where the prevalence of quinolone-resistant Escherichia coli is high. We investigated the real practice of antibiotic prophylaxis for TRUS-Bx in Korea.

Materials and Methods

A total of 77 hospitals performing TRUS-Bx were identified and an e-mail was sent to the Urology Department of those hospitals. The questions in the e-mail included the choice of antibiotics before and after the procedure and the duration of antibiotic therapy after TRUS-Bx.

Results

A total of 54 hospitals (70.0%) responded to the e-mail. Before TRUS-Bx, all hospitals administered intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. The percentage of hospitals that used quinolone, cephalosporin, and aminoglycoside alone was 48.1%, 20.4%, and 9.3%, respectively. The percentage of hospitals that used two or more antibiotics was 22.2%. After biopsy, all 54 hospitals prescribed oral antibiotics. The percentage of hospitals that prescribed quinolone alone, cephalosporin alone, or a combination of two or more antibiotics was 77.8%, 20.4%, and 1.8%, respectively. The duration of antibiotic use was more than 3 days in most hospitals (79.6%). Only four hospitals (7.4%) followed the AUA recommendation of a 1-day regimen.

Conclusions

The AUA recommendation was not followed by most hospitals in Korea. This clinical behavior might reflect the high quinolone resistance rate in Korea, and further studies on the most efficient prophylactic antibiotics after TRUS-Bx in Korea are warranted.

Incidence of infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in Calgary, Alberta, Canada: A retrospective population-based analysis

INTRODUCTION

We have seen an increased risk of infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PB). Fluoroquinolone (FQ) antibiotics are common for prophylaxis prior to TRUS-PB. We evaluate whether increasing FQ resistance correlates with increased incidence of post-biopsy infectious complications at our institution.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart and electronic health record review on 927 patients who underwent TRUS-PB between January and July of 2012 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. We prospectively collected the following variables: age, pre-biopsy prostate-specific antigen, and date of biopsy. We documented presentation to an emergency department within 30 days of TRUS-PB for infectious and non-infectious complications.

RESULTS

Of the 927 patients, 58 patients (6.3%) were admitted to the emergency department due to post-TRUS-PB complications within 30 days post-biopsy. The most common infectious complications were sepsis in 21 patients (2.2%), followed by urinary tract infection (UTI) in 9 (0.9%), and prostatitis in 4 (0.4%). We found that 83% of the septic episodes and 66.6% of the UTIs were attributed to ciprofloxacin resistant Escherichia coli (E. coli). The incidence of non-infectious complications was as follows: urinary retention in 12 (1.2%), hematuria in 9 (0.9%), and rectal bleeding in 8 (0.8%).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest an increased incidence of infectious complications caused by FQ resistant organisms following TRUS-PB. This finding could be attributed to increasing community resistance to ciprofloxacin. The current antimicrobial prophylactic regimen needs to be re-evaluated, and a novel approach may need to be considered.

Reducing infection rates after prostate biopsy

Over the years, prostate biopsy has become the gold-standard technique for diagnosing prostate carcinoma. Worldwide, several million prostate biopsies are performed every year, most commonly using the transrectal approach. Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones has been shown to be effective for reducing infection rates. However, in recent years, an increase in febrile infection rates after transrectal prostate biopsy (from 1% to 4%) has been reported in retrospective and prospective studies. The predominant risk factor for infection seems to be the presence of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria in faeces. Patients at risk of fluoroquinolone resistance should receive carefully selected antibiotics at sufficient concentrations to be effective. Targeted prophylaxis after rectal flora swabbing has been shown to be efficacious compared with empirical antibiotic prophylaxis. Several forms of bowel preparations are under investigation, although none have yet been shown to significantly reduce infection rates. Perineal prostate biopsy is currently being evaluated as a strategy for preventing the inoculation of rectal flora, but limited data support this approach at present.