Safety of heparin bridging therapy for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients requiring temporary discontinuation of antithrombotic agents

Impact of the Proportion of Biopsy Positive Core in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence in Patients with Pathological Pt2 and Negative Resection Margin Status after Radical Prostatectomy

This study aimed to determine the prognostic factors associated with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with pathological T2 (pT2) prostate cancer (PCa) and negative resection margin (RM) status at a single institution. In this retrospective study, we examined 386 patients who were diagnosed with pT2 PCa with negative RM after RP. The length of the tumor was provided for each biopsy core and the overall percentage of PCa was calculated by a pathologist at our institution. We estimated the BCR-free survival (BRFS) in these patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model to determine the risk factors of BCR. The median age of the participants was 68 years, and their initial prostate-specific antigen level was 6.55 ng/mL. The median follow-up period was 85.7 months. The 5-year BRFS rate of the participants was 89.0%. The 5-year BRFS rates were 89.8% in patients with a biopsy Gleason score of 6, 90.4% in those with 7, and 64.1% in those with ≥8 (P = 0.007). The BRFS rate was 93.3% in patients who had a biopsy positive core ≤20% and 82.0% in those who had ≥21% (P = 0.001). Based on the multivariate analysis, the proportion of biopsy positive core was significantly associated with BCR. The proportion of biopsy positive core may predict preoperative covariates in patients with pT2 PCa and negative RM status after RP.

New oral anti-coagulation drugs and prostate biopsy: a call for guidelines

Background:

Prostate biopsy is a rather frequent procedure, mostly performed in outpatient settings. Bleeding complications following this procedure require precise and delicate management of pre-, peri- and post-procedure anti-coagulation treatments. New oral anti-coagulation drugs (NOACs) are increasingly used. However, the management of such treatments is feared and not yet well known to urologists. A protocol for prostate biopsy management of NOACs seems mandatory.

Materials and methods:

A review of the literature, using Pubmed and Cochrane databases, together with analysis of several medical associations’ recommendations in urology, anaesthesiology, cardiology, oncology and drug safety agency, was performed.

Results:

There are no recommendations about NOAC management for prostate biopsy available from scientific societies. There is also a lack of specific urological studies. However, several panels of expert recommendations could be helpful in establishing standardized protocols adapted from surgery to prostate biopsy. With the growing use of NOACs, recommendations have shifted to continue anti-coagulant treatment without bridging NOACs for low bleeding risk procedures such as prostate biopsy, in carefully selected groups of patients.

Conclusion:

Extensive indications coupled with the ease of use of NOACs contribute significantly to the widespread replacement of traditional vitamin K antagonist. Knowing that heparin bridging leads to more bleeding, and in the pursuit of more autonomy and safety, urologists should be able to propose dedicated anti-coagulant management using NOACs adapted to carefully selected patients before the prostate biopsy procedure. Further studies and guidelines specific to the concept of non-bridging for anti-coagulant-requiring patients are mandatory for this routine procedure.