Feasibilities and outcomes of patients treated with simultaneous prostate biopsy and general urological surgeries

Exp Ther Med. 2022 Nov 24;25(1):31. doi: 10.3892/etm.2022.11729. eCollection 2023 Jan.

Abstract

The present single-center retrospective clinical real-world study aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of patients who underwent simultaneous prostate biopsy and general urological surgeries. The medical records of 49 patients who underwent prostate biopsy and general urological surgeries simultaneously from October 2016 to June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients' outcomes were evaluated 3 days, 1 month and 6 months after biopsy. Of the 49 biopsy cases, 41 were treated by transurethral prostatectomy, two by ureteroscopic lithotripsy, two by laparoscopic renal cyst decortication, two by cystostomy and two by ureteral stent extraction. The overall detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer was 22.4%. The rate in patients with a prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score of 4-5 was 100%, while in cases with a PI-RADS score of <3 it was 7.1%. Postoperative complications within 3 days included hematuria in 39 (79.6%) cases, fever in three (6.1%) cases and hematochezia in two (4.1%) cases. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hematuria between the transrectal and transperineal approaches; however, the overall incidence of complications was significantly reduced after switching from a transrectal approach to a transperineal approach. No complications were observed after 1 or 6 months. In summary, combining simultaneous prostate biopsy to general urological surgeries is a safe and feasible approach. The transperineal approach has a lower incidence of complications. This method may benefit certain patients who are concurrently undergoing general urological surgeries and are under suspicion of prostate cancer in real-world clinical practice.

Keywords: complication; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer; prostatic specific antigen; surgery.

Grants and funding

Funding: This study was supported by Ningbo Social Development Fund (grant no. 202002N3192), Medical Health Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Provincial Health Commission (grant no. 2021KY977) and the Fund of Ningbo Clinical Research Center for Urological Disease (grant no. 2019A21001).