Risk factors associated with pain in fusion prostate biopsy

Risk Factors and Contemporary Management Options for Pain and Discomfort Experienced During a Prostate Biopsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prostate fusion biopsy, an innovative imaging modality for diagnosing prostate cancer, presents certain challenges for patients including discomfort and emotional distress, leading to nonadherence to treatment and follow-ups. To inform clinicians and offer pain relief alternatives to patients, this review delves into the risk factors for increased pain and modern management options to alleviate pain during prostate biopsy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Individual responses to pain vary, and the overall experience of pain during a prostate biopsy has been contributed to numerous factors such as patient age, prostate volume, previous biopsy experience, and more. As a result, several strategies aim to mitigate pain during in-office procedures. Notably, techniques including pharmacological analgesics, hand holding, heating pads, entertainment/virtual reality, and distraction have shown significant efficacy. Existing studies explore risk factors influencing pain intensity during prostate biopsy and effective pain management strategies. This review consolidates available information to guide clinicians in enhancing patient comfort and thus, encourage surveillance adherence.

Comparison of procedural anxiety and pain associated with conventional transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy to magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: a prospective cohort trial

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis relies on biopsies, with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsies being common. Fusion biopsy (FB) offers improved diagnostic accuracy, but the pain and anxiety experienced by patients during biopsies is often overlooked. This study aims to compare pain and anxiety levels between standard TRUS-guided biopsy (STB) and systematic plus MRI/US fusion biopsy (STB + FB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study involved adult men undergoing biopsies, receiving identical peri-procedural care, including 2% lidocaine jelly in the rectum and subsequent 1% lidocaine injections (10cc per side) into the prostate-seminal vesicle junction and prostatic apical areas bilaterally. The biopsy technique was chosen based on clinical and imaging findings. Pre- and post-biopsy anxiety levels were assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) questionnaire, categorized as mild (20-37), moderate (38-44), or severe (45-80). Post-biopsy pain was evaluated on a numerical rating scale, ranging from 0 to 10.

RESULTS

Of the 165 patients, 99 underwent STB, and 66 underwent STB + FB. No significant differences were observed in age, race, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, or prior biopsies between the groups. The STB + FB group had more biopsy cores taken (16.2 vs. 12, p = 0.001) and a longer procedure time (23 vs. 10 min, p = 0.001). STB biopsy patients experienced lower post-procedural anxiety compared to STB + FB, with a mean difference of -7 (p = 0.001, d = 0.92). In the STB + FB group, 89% experienced severe post-procedural anxiety compared to 59% in STB (p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in post-procedural pain (p = 0.7). Patients with prior biopsies had significantly higher STAI(S) anxiety scores (p = 0.005), and the number of prior biopsies correlated with anxiety severity (p = 0.04) in STB + FB group.

CONCLUSION

In summary, STB + FB group demonstrated higher post-procedural anxiety levels than the STB group, with no difference in pain levels. Additionally, patients with a history of repeat biopsies were more likely to exhibit higher STAI(S) anxiety scores.

Pain control according to the periprostatic nerve block site in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal targeted prostate biopsy

We analyzed the intensity of pain at each site of systemic prostate biopsy (SBx) and compared the intensity of pain among magnetic resonance (MRI)-targeted transrectal biopsies according to the periprostatic nerve block (PNB) site. We collected data from 229 consecutive patients who had undergone MRI-targeted biopsy. Patients were stratified into two groups according to the site of PNB (base versus base and apex PNB). Pain was quantified at the following time points: probe insertion, injection at the prostate base, injection at the prostate apex, MRI cognitive biopsy (CBx), MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy (FBx), SBx, and 15 min after biopsy. For all biopsy methods, the average pain were significantly higher in the base PNB group than in the base and apex PNB group (CBx, p < 0.001; FBx, p = 0.015; SBx, p < 0.001). In the base and apex PNB group, FBx was significantly more painful than SBx (p = 0.024). Overall, regardless of the PNB site, pain at the anterior sites was more than that at the posterior sites in FBx (p = 0.039). Base and apex PNB provided better overall pain control than base-only PNB in all biopsy methods. In the base and apex PNB group, FBx was more painful than CBx and SBx.

An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study

Background

Periprostatic infiltration anesthesia (PPIA) and intrarectal topical anesthesia (IRTA) are recommended methods to control pain in transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx). This study evaluates the factors affecting pain during TRUS-Bx, considering the pathologies involved in anorectal pain etiology and comparing the effectiveness of local anesthesia techniques in providing patient comfort.

Material and Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 477 consecutive patients with TRUS-Bx for elevated Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), abnormal rectal examination findings, or both. Patients were grouped as local anesthesia methods for pain control during TRUS-Bx. Both groups were compared in terms of age, body mass index, clinical T stage, PSA, prostate volume, number of biopsy cores, type of anesthesia, previous biopsy history, and presence of prostate cancer. We used a visual analog pain scale (VAS) to evaluate the patient’s pain status; pre-procedure (VAS-0), during probe insertion (VAS-I), administration of anesthetic (VAS-A), and simultaneous with the biopsy procedure itself (VAS-Bx). For PPIA and IRTA, 4 ml lidocaine 20 mg/ml injection and 5 g 5% prilocaine-5% lidocaine cream was used, respectively.

Results

The PPIA was used 74.2% (n = 354) and IRTA was used for 25.8% (n = 123) patients. VAS-0, VAS-I, and VAS-A scores are similar between groups. VAS-Bx was significantly higher in the IRTA than in the PPIA (3.37 ± 0.18 vs. 2.36 ± 0.12 p > 0.001). Clinical T stage (OR: 0.59), number of biopsy cores (OR: 1.80), and type of anesthesia application (OR: 2.65) were independent variables on TRUS-Bx for pain.

Conclusion

Three factors play roles as independent variables associated with the pain in TRUS-Bx; abnormal rectal examination findings, collection of more than twelve core samples during the biopsy, and the type of anesthesia used. Compared with PPIA, IRTA does not improve pain related to probe insertion, and using IRTA results in higher pain scores for biopsy-related pain. Thus, we recommend a PPIA to lower biopsy-related pain.

Transperineal Parallel Biopsy of the Prostate: A New Approach of Tissue Sampling for Precision Medicine

Purpose

Through an observational study to present a new approach for obtaining high-quality samples for the targeted therapy of prostate cancer.

Patients and Methods

Parallel biopsy, which was defined as collecting the tissue from the same site by two biopsies, was performed on patients with elevated PSA. Each tissue was stained by ink to identify the pathological characteristics, including Gleason score and tumor tissue ratio. Kendall tau-b test and intraclass correlation coefficient test were used to compare the consistency between each paired sample. Then, based on the pathology of the biopsies, high-quality tissues would be selected for sequencing, and PyClone model was used to track the clonal evolution.

Results

In total, 252 pairs of biopsies were collected. The consistency of Gleason score between each paired biopsy is 0.777 (p<0.01), and the consistency of tumor tissue ratio is 0.853 (p<0.01). With the application of parallel biopsy, on average five nonsynonymous mutations could be identified in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Six out of eight had at least one biology-relevant alteration in patients, guiding further treatment. Meanwhile, clonal evolution was constructed to investigate the progress of tumor.

Conclusion

Parallel biopsy is a reliable approach to collect high-quality tissue and shows potential application in precision medicine.

Effect of Prolonged Duration of Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy of the Prostate and Pre-Procedure Anxiety on Pain in Patients without Anesthesia

Objective

To evaluate factors correlated with pain during prostate biopsy and willingness to undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TR-PBx) again without anesthesia in patients undergoing TR-PBx without anesthesia.

Methods

This retrospective, single-center study evaluated 624 patients who underwent TR-PBx without anesthesia. Based on a nomogram using patient age and prostate volume, 6-12 core biopsy samples were allocated. Anxiety was evaluated using the Faces Anxiety Scale before the TR-PBx. Pain was evaluated using the Faces Pain Scale at each puncture and immediately after confirmation of cessation of bleeding from the rectum after the transrectal probe was pulled out. The question "If this operation must be repeated, would you agree to undergo it again under same conditions?" was asked after the procedure was completed. The change in pain at each puncture and factors correlated with post-procedural pain were calculated using multiple regression analysis, and factors predicting an answer of "yes" to the question using binary logistic analysis were evaluated.

Results

Scores on the Faces Pain Scale significantly increased from the first core sample to last as the number of samples increased. However, the number of samples did not show significant correlation with pain evaluated after the procedure was complete. Time during the biopsy and the anxiety score had a significant correlation with the pain scale score for the completed procedure. Short duration of TR-biopsy and a low anxiety score predicted a reply of "Yes" to the question.

Conclusion

A long operative time during the TR-PBx procedure and strong pre-procedure anxiety can increase pain for patients undergoing the procedure without anesthesia and cause patients to be unwilling to undergo TR-PBx again without anesthesia.

Effects of Hand Holding on Anxiety and Pain During Prostate Biopsies: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Effective pain management is limited for patients during prostate biopsy (PBx). Touch support, such as hand holding, has stress-buffering benefits and effective analgesic effects. We conducted a prospective, single-center randomized clinical trial to assess whether hand holding can reduce patient anxiety, pain, and dissatisfaction during PBx.

METHODS

Between April 2020 and October 2020, 120 male patients were randomized into three groups: a hand holding with relatives (HR) group, a hand holding with strangers (HS) group and a control group. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for self-assessments of pain and satisfaction. Anxiety levels were quantified according to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Hemodynamic changes were also measured.

RESULTS

The degree of pain and anxiety in the hand-holding groups was significantly better than that in the control group (P<0.001), and the patients were more willing to undergo repeat PBx (P=0.017). The anxiety levels in the HR group were significantly lower than those in the HS group (P=0.019). During PBx, the changes in systolic blood pressure and heart rate in the hand-holding groups were more stable than those in the control group (P<0.01), and the fluctuations in heart rate in the HR group were smaller than those in the HS group (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Hand holding, especially with relatives, can promote incremental reductions in anxiety, pain and dissatisfaction in patients during PBx. Hence, we recommend hand holding with relatives as an effective adjunct during PBx.