Additional file 3: of Three-dimensional greyscale transrectal ultrasound-guidance and biopsy core preembedding for detection of prostate cancer: Dutch clinical cohort study

Tumour biopsy characteristics among patients with positive biopsies. (XLSX 12 kb

Additional file 4: of Three-dimensional greyscale transrectal ultrasound-guidance and biopsy core preembedding for detection of prostate cancer: Dutch clinical cohort study

Biopsy Gleason score among patients with positive biopsies. (XLSX 13 kb

Three-dimensional greyscale transrectal ultrasound-guidance and biopsy core preembedding for detection of prostate cancer: Dutch clinical cohort study

Abstract Background To overcome the limitations regarding two dimensional (2D) greyscale (GS) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy in prostate cancer (PCa) detection and tissue packaging in biopsy processing, there is an ongoing focus on new imaging and pathology techniques. A three-dimensional (3D) model of the prostate with biopsy needle guidance can be generate by the Navigo™ workstation (UC-care, Israel). The SmartBX™ system (UC-care, Israel) provides a prostate biopsy core preembedding method. The aim of this study was to compare cancer detection rates between the 3D TRUS-guidance and preembedding method with conventional 2D GS TRUS-guidance among patients undergoing prostate biopsies. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the records of all patients who underwent prostate biopsies for PCa detection at our institution from 2007 to 2016. The cohort was divided into a 2D GS TRUS-guidance cohort (from 2007 to 2013, n = 1149) and a 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding cohort (from 2013 to 2016, n = 469). Effect of 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding on detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥ 7 or > 2 biopsy cores with a Gleason score 6) was compared to 2D GS TRUS-guidance using regression models. Results Detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa was 39.0 and 24.9% in the 3D GS TRUS cohort compared to 33.5 and 19.0% in the 2D GS TRUS cohort, respectively. On multivariate regression analysis the use of 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding was associated with a significant increase in detection rate of PCa (aOR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.03–1.72) and clinically significant PCa (aOR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.09–1.98). Conclusion Our results suggest that 3D GS TRUS-guidance with biopsy core preembedding improves PCa and clinically significant PCa detection compared to 2D GS TRUS-guidance. Additional studies are needed to justify the application of these systems in clinical practice

Cost Effectiveness of Rectal Culture-based Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: The Results from a Randomized, Nonblinded, Multicenter Trial

Background: Culture-based antibiotic prophylaxis is a plausible strategy to reduce infections after transrectal prostate biopsy (PB) related to fluoroquinolone-resistant pathogens. Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of rectal culture-based prophylaxis compared with empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. Design, setting, and participants: The study was performed alongside a trial in 11 Dutch hospitals investigating the effectiveness of culture-based prophylaxis in transrectal PB between April 2018 and July 2021 (trial registration number: NCT03228108). Intervention: Patients were 1:1 randomized for empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis (oral) or culture-based prophylaxis. Costs for both prophylactic strategies were determined for two scenarios: (1) all infectious complications within 7 d after biopsy and (2) culture-proven Gram-negative infections within 30 d after biopsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Differences in costs and effects (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were analyzed from a healthcare and societal perspective (including productivity losses, and travel and parking costs) using a bootstrap procedure presenting uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in a cost-effectiveness plane and acceptability curve. Results and limitations: For the 7-d follow-up period, culture-based prophylaxis (n = 636) was €51.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.52–96.63) more expensive from a healthcare perspective and €16.95 (95% CI –54.29 to 88.18) from a societal perspective than empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis (n = 652). Ciprofloxacin-resistant bacteria were detected in 15.4%. Extrapolating our data, from a healthcare perspective, 40% ciprofloxacin resistance would lead to equal cost for both strategies. Results were similar for the 30-d follow-up period. No significant differences in QALYs were observed. Conclusions: Our results should be interpreted in the context of local ciprofloxacin resistance rates. In our setting, from a healthcare perspective, culture-based prophylaxis was significantly more expensive than empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. From a societal perspective, culture-based prophylaxis was somewhat more cost effective against the threshold value customary for the Netherlands (€80.000). Patient summary: Culture-based prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsy was not associated with reduced costs compared with empirical ciprofloxacin prophylaxis