Prostate biopsy-related infection: a systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches

A systematic review to identify risk factors for prostate biopsy-related infection, preventative strategies, and optimal management of infectious complications was conducted. Significant risk factors for postbiopsy infection include urogenital infection, antibiotic use, international travel, hospital exposure, bacteriuria, previous transrectal biopsy, and resistance of fecal flora to antibiotic prophylaxis (especially fluoroquinolones). Patients at risk may benefit from an adjusted biopsy protocol comprising transrectal biopsy under targeted prophylaxis, and/or the use of rectal disinfection techniques or using a transperineal approach. Management of biopsy-related infection should be based on individual risk and local resistance profiles with input from multiple specialties

European Association of Urology Position Paper on the Prevention of Infectious Complications Following Prostate Biopsy

Funding support: This work is supported by the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office.Peer reviewedPostprin

Benefits and Risks of Primary Treatments for High-risk Localized and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer : An International Multidisciplinary Systematic Review

Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Peer reviewedPostprin

Systematic Review of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer to Develop Recommendations Regarding Inclusion of Intermediate-risk Disease, Biopsy Characteristics at Inclusion and Monitoring, and Surveillance Repeat Biopsy Strategy

none38siContext: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy. Evidence acquisition: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed. Evidence synthesis: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy. Conclusions: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified. Patient summary: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).noneWillemse, Peter-Paul M; Davis, Niall F; Grivas, Nikolaos; Zattoni, Fabio; Lardas, Michael; Briers, Erik; Cumberbatch, Marcus G; De Santis, Maria; Dell'Oglio, Paolo; Donaldson, James F; Fossati, Nicola; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Gillessen, Silke; Grummet, Jeremy P; Henry, Ann M; Liew, Matthew; MacLennan, Steven; Mason, Malcolm D; Moris, Lisa; Plass, Karin; O'Hanlon, Shane; Omar, Muhammad Imran; Oprea-Lager, Daniela E; Pang, Karl H; Paterson, Catherine C; Ploussard, Guillaume; Rouvière, Olivier; Schoots, Ivo G; Tilki, Derya; van den Bergh, Roderick C N; Van den Broeck, Thomas; van der Kwast, Theodorus H; van der Poel, Henk G; Wiegel, Thomas; Yuan, Cathy Yuhong; Cornford, Philip; Mottet, Nicolas; Lam, Thomas B LWillemse, Peter-Paul M; Davis, Niall F; Grivas, Nikolaos; Zattoni, Fabio; Lardas, Michael; Briers, Erik; Cumberbatch, Marcus G; De Santis, Maria; Dell'Oglio, Paolo; Donaldson, James F; Fossati, Nicola; Gandaglia, Giorgio; Gillessen, Silke; Grummet, Jeremy P; Henry, Ann M; Liew, Matthew; Maclennan, Steven; Mason, Malcolm D; Moris, Lisa; Plass, Karin; O'Hanlon, Shane; Omar, Muhammad Imran; Oprea-Lager, Daniela E; Pang, Karl H; Paterson, Catherine C; Ploussard, Guillaume; Rouvière, Olivier; Schoots, Ivo G; Tilki, Derya; van den Bergh, Roderick C N; Van den Broeck, Thomas; van der Kwast, Theodorus H; van der Poel, Henk G; Wiegel, Thomas; Yuan, Cathy Yuhong; Cornford, Philip; Mottet, Nicolas; Lam, Thomas B

Current practice of prostate biopsy in Australia and New Zealand: A survey

Introduction: Prostate biopsy remains the gold standard for prostate cancer diagnosis. The field of prostate biopsy is undergoing a rapid change. This study aims to provide a snapshot of the current practice of prostate biopsy in the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ). Materials and Methods: A 31-question multiple-choice survey was constructed using a web-based provider and was distributed to 644 members of USANZ. The questionnaire addressed various aspects of prostate biopsy. Questionnaire results were collated and the data were analyzed statistically. Results: 150 completed surveys were returned, with a response rate of 23.3%: 84.5% of those completing the survey were consultant urologists and 68% were working in a metropolitan setting. 98.6% of clinicians used prophylactic antibiotics before prostate biopsy, most commonly a quinolone. 30.6% had used intravenous (IV) carbapenems at least once. Peri-prostatic local anesthetic (LA) infiltration was used by 39.9% of clinicians with 73% using IV sedation or general anesthetic (GA). 38.4% of clinicians reported performing TPT biopsy of the prostate and 19.6% of clinicians had ordered a MRI of the prostate prior to an initial biopsy with 10.2% routinely ordering a MRI of the prostate before repeat biopsy. Conclusion: Frequent prophylactic use of carbapenems suggests concern amongst clinicians about sepsis with quinolone-resistant bacteria. Almost 75% of TRUS biopsies were performed under IV sedation or GA indicating a heavy demand of health resources. TPT biopsy was used commonly and there was significant use of multiparametric MRI prior to prostate biopsy

Current practice of prostate biopsy in Australia and New Zealand:A survey

Introduction: Prostate biopsy remains the gold standard for prostate cancer diagnosis. The field of prostate biopsy is undergoing a rapid change. This study aims to provide a snapshot of the current practice of prostate biopsy in the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ). Materials and Methods: A 31-question multiple-choice survey was constructed using a web-based provider and was distributed to 644 members of USANZ. The questionnaire addressed various aspects of prostate biopsy. Questionnaire results were collated and the data were analyzed statistically. Results: 150 completed surveys were returned, with a response rate of 23.3%: 84.5% of those completing the survey were consultant urologists and 68% were working in a metropolitan setting. 98.6% of clinicians used prophylactic antibiotics before prostate biopsy, most commonly a quinolone. 30.6% had used intravenous (IV) carbapenems at least once. Peri-prostatic local anesthetic (LA) infiltration was used by 39.9% of clinicians with 73% using IV sedation or general anesthetic (GA). 38.4% of clinicians reported performing TPT biopsy of the prostate and 19.6% of clinicians had ordered a MRI of the prostate prior to an initial biopsy with 10.2% routinely ordering a MRI of the prostate before repeat biopsy. Conclusion: Frequent prophylactic use of carbapenems suggests concern amongst clinicians about sepsis with quinolone-resistant bacteria. Almost 75% of TRUS biopsies were performed under IV sedation or GA indicating a heavy demand of health resources. TPT biopsy was used commonly and there was significant use of multiparametric MRI prior to prostate biopsy

UNDERSTANDING THE E-VIEWER SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION

Video conferencing is emerging as a useful clinical tool. Its application has extended to cover home monitoring, psychotherapy, managing patients with chronic diseases among other applications. However, utilizing video conferencing capabilities to facilitate discharge processes has, to date, been sparsely researched. This study proffers the use of video conferencing to facilitate better patient discharge processes at a large Australian not-for-profit tertiary healthcare group. An FVM framework is developed to assess critical success factors