Comparative Effectiveness and Tolerability of Transperineal MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy under Local versus Sedation. Academic Article uri icon

Overview

abstract

  • OBJECTIVES: To assess the prostate cancer diagnostic yield, complications, and costs of transperineal prostate biopsies when performed with local anesthesia versus sedation. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected for men undergoing transperineal MRI-targeted biopsy at the outpatient clinic and tertiary hospital of a single center between October 2017 to February 2020. These data included demographic, procedural, and pathologic variables and complications. Time-driven activity-based costing was performed to compare procedural costs. RESULTS: 126 men were included. Age, BMI and PSA were similar for local (n = 45) vs sedation (n = 81), all P>0.05. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) on combined systematic and targeted biopsy was similar for local vs sedation (24% vs 36%; P = 0.2). Local had lower detection on targeted biopsies alone (8.9% vs 25%; P = 0.03). However, fewer targeted cores were obtained per region of interest with local vs sedation (median 3 vs 4 cores; P<0.01). For local vs sedation, the complication rate was 2.6% and 6.1% (P = 0.6). The median visual analog pain score for local vs sedation was 3/10 vs 0/10 (P<0.01). The mean procedure time for local vs sedation was 22.5 vs 17.5 minutes (48.3 minutes when including anesthesia time). Time-driven activity-based costs for local vs sedation were $961.64 vs $2208.16 (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Transperineal biopsy with local anesthesia is safe with comparable outcomes to sedation. While the number of cores taken differed, there was no statistical difference in the detection of clinically significant cancer.

publication date

  • July 2, 2021

Research

keywords

  • Anesthesia, Local
  • Deep Sedation
  • Image-Guided Biopsy
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional
  • Prostate
  • Prostatic Neoplasms

Identity

Scopus Document Identifier

  • 85111613321

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.urology.2021.06.023

PubMed ID

  • 34217762

Additional Document Info

volume

  • 155