Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping Biopsies in the PICTURE Study

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Dec 2018Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping Biopsies in the PICTURE Study Saiful Miah, David Eldred-Evans, Lucy A.M. Simmons, Taimur T. Shah, Abi Kanthabalan, Manit Arya, Mathias Winkler, Neil McCartan, Alex Freeman, Shonit Punwani, Caroline M. Moore, Mark Emberton, and Hashim U. Ahmed Saiful MiahSaiful Miah Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom Department of Urology, Charing Cross, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom , David Eldred-EvansDavid Eldred-Evans Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom , Lucy A.M. SimmonsLucy A.M. Simmons Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom , Taimur T. ShahTaimur T. Shah Department of Urology, Charing Cross, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom , Abi KanthabalanAbi Kanthabalan Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom , Manit AryaManit Arya Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom , Mathias WinklerMathias Winkler Department of Urology, Charing Cross, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom , Neil McCartanNeil McCartan Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom , Alex FreemanAlex Freeman Department of Pathology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom , Shonit PunwaniShonit Punwani Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom , Caroline M. MooreCaroline M. Moore Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom , Mark EmbertonMark Emberton Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom , and Hashim U. AhmedHashim U. Ahmed Department of Urology, Charing Cross, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.033AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy is an increasingly used method of procuring tissue from men with suspected prostate cancer. We report patient related outcome measures and adverse events in men in the PICTURE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01492270) who underwent this diagnostic test. Materials and Methods: A total of 249 men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy as a validation study. Functional outcomes before and after transperineal template prostate mapping were prospectively collected and recorded with questionnaires, including the I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), the I-PSS-QoL (Quality of Life), the IIEF-15 (International Index of Erectile Function-15) and the EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) urinary function. Results: Mean age was 62 years, median prostate specific antigen was 6.8 ng/ml and median gland size was 37 ml. At transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy a median of 49 cores (IQR 40–55) were taken. Mean time to complete the post-procedure patient related outcome measure questionnaires was 46 days. Adverse events included post-procedure acute urinary retention in 24% of patients, rectal pain in 26% and perineal pain in 41%. Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy resulted in a statistically significant increase in scores on the I-PSS from 10.9 to 11.8 (p = 0.024) and the I-PSS-QoL from 1.57 to 1.76 (p = 0.03). The IIEF-15 erectile function score decreased by 23.2% from 47.7 to 38.7 (p <0.001). Significant deterioration was noted in all 5 of IIEF-15 functional domains, including erectile and orgasmic function, sexual desire, and intercourse and overall satisfaction (p <0.001). EPIC urinary scores showed no overall change from baseline. Conclusions: Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy causes a high urinary retention rate and a detrimental impact on genitourinary functional outcomes, including deterioration in urinary flow and sexual function. Our findings can be used to ensure adequate counseling about transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. The results point to a need for strategies such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies to minimize the harms of transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. References 1 : Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet2017; 389: 815. Google Scholar 2 : MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. NEJM2018; 378: 1767. Google Scholar 3 : The role of a standardized 36 core template-assisted transperineal prostate biopsy technique in patients with previously negative transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies. BJU Int2012; 109: 367. Google Scholar 4 : Transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy aimed at sampling one core for each milliliter of prostate volume: 103 cases requiring repeat prostate biopsy. BMC Urol2017; 17: 28. Google Scholar 5 : Complication rates of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a nation-wide survey in Japan. Int J Urol2008; 15: 319. Google Scholar 6 : Re: Predictors of infectious complications after targeted prophylaxis for prostate needle biopsy. Eur Urol2018; 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.04.00. Crossref, Google Scholar 7 : Getting the Most out of PROMS: Putting Health Outcomes at the heart of NHS Decision-Making. London: The Kings Fund2010. Google Scholar 8 : Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights2013; 6: 61. Google Scholar 9 : Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol2015; 16: 1605. Google Scholar 10 : Long-term psychological and quality-of-life effects of active surveillance and watchful waiting after diagnosis of low-risk localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol2018; 73: 859. Google Scholar 11 : Short- and Long-term functional outcomes and quality of life after radical prostatectomy: patient-reported outcomes from a tertiary high-volume center. Eur Urol Focus2017; 3: 615. Google Scholar 12 : Patient reported outcomes among treatment modalities for prostate cancer. Can J Urol2016; 23: 8535. Google Scholar 13 : The PICTURE study—prostate imaging (multi-parametric MRI and Prostate HistoScanning) compared to transperineal ultrasound guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer risk evaluation. Contemp Clin Trials2014; 37: 69. Google Scholar 14 : The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer2017; 116: 1159. Google Scholar 15 : Comparison of patient experience after transperinal template prostate biopsy with prior transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol2017; 16: e1084. Google Scholar 16 : The morbidity of transperineal template-guided prostate mapping biopsy. BJU Int2008; 101: 1524. Google Scholar 17 : Transperineal prostate biopsies for diagnosis of prostate cancer are well tolerated: a prospective study using patient-reported outcome measures. Asian J Androl2017; 19: 62. Google Scholar 18 : Erectile dysfunction in 1050 men following extended (18 cores) vs saturation (28 cores) vs saturation plus MRI-targeted prostate biopsy (32 cores). Int J Impot Res2016; 28: 1. Google Scholar 19 : Patient-reported outcome measures in urology. Curr Opin Urol2017; 27: 366. Google Scholar 20 : The importance of patient-reported outcome measures in reconstructive urology. Curr Opin Urol2010; 20: 495. Google Scholar 21 : Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ2012; 344: d7894. Google Scholar 22 : Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol2010; 183: 963. Link, Google Scholar 23 : Sepsis and 'superbugs': should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy?. BJU Int2014; 114: 384. Google Scholar 24 : Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis2017; 20: 311. Google Scholar 25 : Does true Gleason pattern 3 merit its cancer descriptor?. Nat Rev Urol2016; 13: 541. Google Scholar 26 : Optimization and planning of operating theatre activities: an original definition of pathways and process modeling. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2015; 15: 38. Google Scholar 27 : Variations in the processing of prostatic needle cores in the UK; what is safe?. J Clin Pathol2003; 56: 341. Google Scholar © 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byUrkmez A, Demirel C, Altok M, Bathala T, Shapiro D and Davis J (2021) Freehand versus Grid-Based Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: A Comparison of Anatomical Region Yield and ComplicationsJournal of Urology, VOL. 206, NO. 4, (894-902), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2021.Kinnaird A, Sharma V, Chuang R, Priester A, Tran E, Barsa D, Delfin M, Kwan L, Sisk A, Felker E and Marks L (2020) Risk of Prostate Cancer after a Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided BiopsyJournal of Urology, VOL. 204, NO. 6, (1180-1186), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020.Connor M, Eldred-Evans D, van Son M, Hosking-Jervis F, Bertoncelli Tanaka M, Reddy D, Bass E, Powell L, Ahmad S, Pegers E, Joshi S, Sri D, Wong K, Tam H, Hrouda D, Qazi H, Gordon S, Winkler M and Ahmed H (2020) A Multicenter Study of the Clinical Utility of Nontargeted Systematic Transperineal Prostate Biopsies in Patients Undergoing Pre-Biopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingJournal of Urology, VOL. 204, NO. 6, (1195-1201), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020.Lovegrove C, Miah S, El-Shater Bosaily A, Bott S, Brown L, Burns-Cox N, Dudderidge T, Freeman A, Henderson A, Hindley R, Kaplan R, Kirkham A, Oldroyd R, Parker C, Persad R, Punwani S, Rosario D, Shergill I, Winkler M, Emberton M and Ahmed H (2019) Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy to Transperineal Template Mapping Biopsies Stratified by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score in the PROMIS TrialJournal of Urology, VOL. 203, NO. 1, (100-107), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2020.Smith J (2018) This Month in Adult UrologyJournal of Urology, VOL. 200, NO. 6, (1133-1135), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018. Volume 200Issue 6December 2018Page: 1235-1240Supplementary Materials Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsimage-guided biopsyprostatic neoplasmspatient reported outcome measurescomplicationsmagnetic resonance imagingMetricsAuthor Information Saiful Miah Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom Department of Urology, Charing Cross, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom Equal study contribution. More articles by this author David Eldred-Evans Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Lucy A.M. Simmons Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Taimur T. Shah Department of Urology, Charing Cross, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Abi Kanthabalan Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Manit Arya Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Mathias Winkler Department of Urology, Charing Cross, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Neil McCartan Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Alex Freeman Department of Pathology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Shonit Punwani Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Caroline M. Moore Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Mark Emberton Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom Financial interest and/or other relationship with University College London. More articles by this author Hashim U. Ahmed Department of Urology, Charing Cross, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...