Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Risk assessment of multi-factorial complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a single institutional retrospective cohort study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSPB) is widely used to diagnose prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of multi-factorial complications (febrile genitourinary tract infection (GUTI), rectal bleeding, and urinary retention) after TRUSPB.

Methods

N = 2053 patients were Japanese patients undergoing transrectal or transperineal TRUSPB for suspicious of PCa. To assess risk of febrile GUTI adequately, the patients were divided into four groups: low-risk patients before starting a rectal culture, low-risk patients after starting a rectal culture, high-risk patients, and patients undergoing transperineal TRUSPB. Furthermore, to identify risk of rectal bleeding and urinary retention, patients were divided into transrectal and transperineal group.

Results

Febrile GUTI significantly decreased owing to risk classification. The frequency of rectal bleeding was 1.43% (transrectal: 25/1742), while it did not happen in transperineal group. The patients with rectal bleeding had a significantly lower body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.01). The frequency of urinary retention was 5.57% (transrectal: 97/1742), while it did not happen in transperineal group. The patients with urinary retention had a significantly higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (P = 0.01) in transrectal group.

Conclusions

Risk classification, rectal swab culture, and selected antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal TRUSPB were extremely effective to reduce the risk of febrile GUTI. Furthermore, lower BMI and higher PSA were novel clinical predictors for rectal bleeding and urinary retention, respectively. When urologists perform transrectal TRUSPB to their patients, they can correctly understand and explain each complication risk to their patients based on these novel risk factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Utsumi T, Oka R, Endo T et al (2015) External validation and comparison of two nomograms predicting the probability of Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology in two patient populations: a retrospective cohort study. Jpn J Clin Oncol 45:1091–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ito K, Furuta A, Kido A et al (2020) Detectability of prostate cancer in different parts of the gland with 3-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Int J Clin Oncol 25:732–740

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tohi Y, Kato T, Matsumoto R et al (2020) The impact of complications after initial prosate biopsy on repeat protocol biopsy acceptance rate. Results from the Ptostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance JAPAN study. Int J Clin Oncol 26:956–970

    Google Scholar 

  4. Teoh JYC, Hirai HW, Ho JMW et al (2019) Global incidence of prostate cancer in developing and developed countries with changing age structures. PLoS ONE 14:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ding XF, Luan Y, Lu SM et al (2020) Risk factors for infection complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. World J Urol (in press)

  6. Togo Y, Kubo T, Taoka R et al (2014) Occurrence of infection following prostate biopsy procedures in Japan Japanese Research Group for Urinary Tract Infection (JRGU)—a multi-center retrospective study. J Infect Chemother 20:232–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hiyama Y, Takahashi S, Uehara T et al (2019) Selective culture of Escherichia coli to prevent infective complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: clinical efficacy and analysis of characteristics of quinolone-resistant Escherichia coli. Int J Urol 26:655–660

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Derin O, Fonseca L, Sanchez-Salas R et al (2020) Infectious complications of prostate biopsy: winning battles but not war. World J Urol 38:2743–2753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X et al (2019) Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 17:1–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Togo Y, Yamamoto S (2017) Prevention of infectious complications after prostate biopsy procedure. Int J Urol 24:486–492

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheng KC, Lam WC, Chan HC et al (2019) Emergency attendances and hospitalisations for complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: a five-year retrospective multicentre study. Hong Kong Med J 25:349–355

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ivan SJ, Sindhwani P (2018) Comparison of guideline recommendations for antimicrobial prophylaxis in urologic procedures: variability, lack of consensus, and contradictions. Int Urol Nephrol 50:1923–1937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yasuda M, Nakane K, Yamada Y et al (2014) Clinical effectiveness and safety of tazobactam/piperacillin 4.5 g for the prevention of febrile infectious complication after prostate biopsy. J Infect Chemother 20:631–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Shen PF, Zhu YC, Wei WR et al (2012) The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 14:310–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU et al (2013) Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 64:876–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Quinlan MR, Bolton D, Casey RG (2018) The management of rectal bleeding following transrectal prostate biopsy: a review of the current literature. J Can Urol Assoc 12:E146–E153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lo KL, Chui KL, Leung CH et al (2019) Outcomes of transperineal and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Hong Kong Med J 25:209–215

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R et al (2017) Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy [figure presented]. Eur Urol 71:353–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grummet J (2017) How to biopsy: transperineal versus transrectal, saturation versus targeted, what’s the evidence? Urol Clin North Am 44:525–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yamamoto S, Shigemura K, Kiyota H et al (2015) Essential Japanese guidelines for the prevention of perioperative infections in the urological field: 2015 edition. Int J Urol 23:814–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shoji S, Hiraiwa S, Hanada I et al (2020) Current status and future prospective of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: development of multiparametric MRI, MRI-TRUS fusion image-guided biopsy, and treatment modalities. Int J Clin Oncol 25:509–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chiang IN, Chang SJ, Pu YS et al (2007) Major complications and associated risk factors of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: a retrospective study of 1875 cases in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc 106:929–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Trujillo CG, Plata M, Caicedo JI et al (2016) Impact of rectal swabs on infectious complications after transrectal prostate biopsy. Urol Int 97:340–346

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Seitz M, Stief C, Waidelich R et al (2017) Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in the era of increasing fluoroquinolone resistance: prophylaxis with single-dose ertapenem. World J Urol 35:1681–1688

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Auffenberg GB, Qi J, Gao Y et al (2018) Evaluation of a needle disinfectant technique to reduce infection-related hospitalisation after transrectal prostate biopsy. BJU Int 121:232–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tan WP, Papagiannopoulos D, Latchamsetty KC et al (2019) Predictors of fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria in the rectal vault of men undergoing prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 22:268–275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Singh P, Kumar A, Yadav S et al (2017) “Targeted” prophylaxis: impact of rectal swab culture-directed prophylaxis on infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Investig Clin Urol 58:365–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Noreikaite J, Jones P, Fitzpatrick J et al (2018) Fosfomycin vs. quinolone-based antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21:153–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C et al (2012) Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ 344:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Petroski RA, Griewe GL, Schenkman NS (2003) Delayed life-threatening hemorrhage after transrectal prostate needle biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 6:190–192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Raaijmakers R, Kirkels WJ, Roobol MJ et al (2002) Complication rates and risk factors of 5802 transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies of the prostate within a population-based screening program. Urology 60:826–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Toho University Sakura Medical Center, 564-1 Shimoshizu, Sakura-shi, Chiba, 285-8741, Japan

    Takanobu Utsumi, Takumi Endo, Yuka Sugizaki, Takamichi Mori, Takatoshi Somoto, Seiji Kato, Ryo Oka, Masashi Yano, Naoto Kamiya & Hiroyoshi Suzuki

Authors
  1. Takanobu Utsumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takumi Endo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuka Sugizaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takamichi Mori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takatoshi Somoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Seiji Kato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ryo Oka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masashi Yano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Naoto Kamiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hiroyoshi Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takanobu Utsumi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Hiroyoshi Suzuki has received honoraria and/or research grants from Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, Astellas Pharma Inc, Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc, Pfizer Inc, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Nippon Kayaku, Bayer Ltd and Taiho Pharmaceutical Company Ltd.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Utsumi, T., Endo, T., Sugizaki, Y. et al. Risk assessment of multi-factorial complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a single institutional retrospective cohort study. Int J Clin Oncol 26, 2295–2302 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-021-02010-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-021-02010-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation