What may be Related to Patient Satisfaction in Prostate Biopsies?

Year 2024, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 50 - 57, 31.05.2024

Nihat Türkmen , Taner Hacıosmanoğlu

https://doi.org/10.54233/endourolbull-1423624

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the factors affecting patient satisfaction in patients undergoing prostate biopsy.
Material and Methods: Two hundred thirty seven of 241 patients, aged between 48 and 86, those who are decided to undergo transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy, were evaluated prospectively. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values, prostate volume, positive digital rectal examination (DRE) findings and biopsy indications of the patients were recorded before the procedure. The level of pain felt during biopsy was scored by visualised pain scoring (VAS). Patient satisfaction was evaluated with a 4-point scale after biopsy.
Results: Of the 237 patients evaluated, 92 were dissatisfied with the procedure, while 145 were satisfied. The mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 were 65.9±8.1 and 66.1 ± 7.6 years, BMI were 27.7±4.0 and 26.3 ± 3.9 kg/m2, PSA level were 58.6 ± 304.6 and 17.9 ± 68.1 ng/ml, Prostate volüme were 59.4 ± 51.8 and 51.8 ± 28.7 cc., The median VAS score 4 (3-6) and 4 (2.5-6) respectively.
The Satisfaction levels of positive DRE findings Group was 3 (2-3) while negative 3 (2-3), Tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while no tumor Group’s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3), Perineural invasion of tumor existance Group was 3 (2-3) while other Group’s Satisfaction levels 3 (2-3).
Conclusion: In TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, no relationship was found between the patient’s satisfaction level and the patient’s age, PSA level, prostate volume, the level of pain felt, positive DRE finding, positive Tumor pathology or having perineural invasion of the tumor histologically. There is a statistically significant relationship between BMI and the level of satisfaction.

Keywords

Patient Satisfaction, Pain level, Prostate biopsy, Positive tumor pathology, Perineural invasion

Project Number

3914

Prostat Biyopsilerinde Hasta Memnuniyeti Nelerle İlişkili Olabilir?

Abstract

Amaç: Prostat biyopsisi yapılan hastalarda hasta memnuniyetini etkileyen faktörleri araştırmak.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Transrektal ultrasonografi (TRUS) eşliğinde prostat biyopsisi yapılmasına karar verilen, yaşları 48 ile 86 arasında değişen 241 hastanın 237’si prospektif olarak değerlendirildi. İşlem öncesinde hastaların yaşı, vücut kitle indeksi (VKI), prostat spesifik antijen (PSA) değerleri, prostat hacmi, pozitif parmakla rektal muayene (PRM) bulguları ve biyopsi endikasyonları kaydedildi. Biyopsi esnasında hisedilen ağrı düzeyi, görsel ağrı skorlama (VAS) ile puanlandı. Biyopsi sonrasında hasta memnuniyeti 4 puanlık ölçek ile değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: Değerlendirmeye alınan 237 hastadan 92’si işlemden memnun değil iken, 145 hasta memnundu. Grup 1 ve Grup 2’nin ortalama yaşları 65,9±8,1 ve 66,1±7,6 yıl, VKI 27,7±4,0 ve 26,3±3,9 kg/m2, PSA düzeyleri 58,6±304,6 ve 17,9 ± 68,1 ng/ml, Prostat hacmi 59,4 ± 51,8 ve 51,8 ± 28,7 cc Ortanca VAS skoru sırasıyla 4 (3-6) ve 4 (2,5-6) idi.
PRM bulguları pozitif olan grubun memnuniyet düzeyi 3 (2-3) iken, negatif olan grubun 3 (2-3) olarak bulundu. Tümor varlığı pozitif olan grubun memnuniyet düzeyi 3 (2-3) bulunurken, tümor bulunmayan grubun memnuniyet düzeyi 3 (2-3) idi. Perinöral invazyon görülen grubun memnuniyet düzeyi 3 (2-3)iken, görülmeyen grubun memnuniyet düzeyi 3 (2-3) olarak bulundu.
Sonuç: TRUS eşliğinde yapılan prostat biyopsilerinde hastanın memnuniyet düzeyi ile hastanın yaşı, serum PSA düzeyi, prostat hacmi, hissedilen ağrı düzeyi, pozitif PRM bulgusu, pozitif tümor patolojisi veya histolojik olarak tumorün perinöral invazyonu arasında ilişki saptanmadı. BMI ile memnuniyet düzeyi arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki mevcuttu.

Keywords

Pain level, Prostate biopsy, Positive tumor pathology, Perineural invasion

Ethical Statement

02/05/2023-3914

Supporting Institution

ŞİŞLİ ETFAL HAMİDİYE TRAİNİNG AND RESEARCH HOSPİTAL ETHİC COMMİTTE

Project Number

3914

References

• Leslie, S. W., Soon-Sutton, T. L., R I, A., Sajjad, H., & Siref, L. E. (2023). Prostate Cancer. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing.
• Zhang, Y., Yuan, Q., Muzzammil, H. M., Gao, G., & Xu, Y. (2023). Image-guided prostate biopsy robots: A review. Mathematical biosciences and engineering: MBE. 20(8):15135-15166. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2023678
• Merriel SWD, Funston G, Hamilton W. Prostate Cancer in Primary Care. Adv Ther. 2018;35(9):1285-1294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-018-0766-1.
• Rempega G, Rajwa P, Kępiński M, Ryszawy J, Wojnarowicz J, Kowalik M, Krzempek M, Krzywon A, Dobrakowski M, Paradysz A, Bryniarski P. The Severity of Pain in Prostate Biopsy Depends on the Biopsy Sector. J Pers Med. 2023 Feb 27;13(3):431. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13030431.
• Pienta KJ, Esper PS. Risk factors for prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1993 May 15;118(10):793-803. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-118-10-199305150-00007.
• Cuzick J, Thorat MA, Andriole G, Brawley OW, Brown PH, Culig Z, Eeles RA, Ford LG, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Ilic D, Key TJ, La Vecchia C, Lilja H, Marberger M, Meyskens FL, Minasian LM, Parker C, Parnes HL, Perner S, Rittenhouse H, Schalken J, Schmid HP, Schmitz-Dräger BJ, Schröder FH, Stenzl A, Tombal B, Wilt TJ, Wolk A. Prevention and early detection of prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(11):e484-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70211-6. PMID: 25281467; PMCID: PMC4203149.
• Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.
• Eldred-Evans D, Burak P, Connor MJ, Day E, Evans M, Fiorentino F, Gammon M, Hosking-Jervis F, Klimowska-Nassar N, McGuire W, Padhani AR, Prevost AT, Price D, Sokhi H, Tam H, Winkler M, Ahmed HU. Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Ultrasonography: The IP1-PROSTAGRAM Study. JAMA Oncol. 2021 Mar 1;7(3):395-402. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7456.
• Streicher, J., Meyerson, B. L., Karivedu, V., & Sidana, A. (2019). A review of optimal prostate biopsy: indications and techniques. Therapeutic advances in urology, 11, 1756287219870074. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287219870074
• Ozah E, Ezenwa EV, Agbugui JO, Osaigbovo EO. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in university of Benin teaching hospital: effect of prostate volume on pain amongst Nigerian patients. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2021 Feb 15;9(1):157-162. PMID: 33816704; PMCID: PMC8012828.
• Mate K, Nedjim S, Bellucci S, Boucault C, Ghaffar N, Constantini T, Marvanykovi F, Vestris PG, Sadreux Y, Laguerre M, Stempfer G, Blanchet P, Istvan B, Brureau L. Prostate biopsy approach and complication rates. Oncol Lett. 2023 Jul 17;26(3):375. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2023.13959.
• Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, Rosario DJ, Scattoni V, Lotan Y. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049.
• Rodriguez, A., Kyriakou, G., Leray, E., Lobel, B., & Guillé, F. Prospective study comparing two methods of anaesthesia for prostate biopsies: apex periprostatic nerve block versus intrarectal lidocaine gel: review of the literature. European urology, 2003;44(2):95-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00188-x
• Akduman B, Crawford E. Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: Current approach. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, 2010;36(1):25-32.
• Turgut AT, Olçücüoğlu E, Koşar P, Geyik PO, Koşar U. Complications and limitations related to periprostatic local anesthesia before TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. J Clin Ultrasound. 2008;36(2):67-71. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.20424.
• Alvarez-Múgica M, González Alvarez RC, Jalón Monzón A, Fernández Gómez JM, Rodríguez Faba O, Rodríguez Robles L, Regadera Sejas FJ. Tolerancia y complicaciones de las biopsias prostaticas ecodirigidas mediante el uso de un gel intrarectal con lidocaina [Tolerability and complications of ultrasound guided prostate biopsies with intrarectal lidocaine gel]. Arch Esp Urol. 2007;60(3):237-44. Spanish. https://doi.org/10.4321/s0004-06142007000300003.
• Peters JL, Thompson AC, McNicholas TA, Hines JE, Hanbury DC, Boustead GB. Increased patient satisfaction from transrectal ultrasonography and biopsy under sedation. BJU Int. 2001;87(9):827-30. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02221.x.
• Awsare NS, Green JA, Aldwinckle B, Hanbury DC, Boustead GB, McNicholas TA. The use of propofol sedation for transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy is associated with high patient satisfaction and acceptability. Eur J Radiol. 2007;63(1):94-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.12.010.
• Hossack T, Woo HH. Acceptance of repeat transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsies with local anaesthesia. BJU Int. 2011;107 Suppl 3:38-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10048.x
• Yun TJ, Lee HJ, Kim SH, Lee SE, Byun SS, Hong SK, Cho JY, Seong CK. Prospective analysis on the relation between pain and prostate volume during transrectal prostate biopsy. Korean J Radiol. 2007 May-Jun;8(3):231-5. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2007.8.3.231.
• Skyring TA, Mansfield KJ, Mullan JR. Factors Affecting Satisfaction with the Decision-Making Process and Decision Regret for Men with a New Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. Am J Mens Health. 2021;15(4):15579883211026812. https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883211026812.
• Hong S, Choi W, Lee KW, Lee YT, Kwon T. Penile length and circumference: are they related to nose size? Transl Androl Urol. 2023 May 31;12(5):708-714. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-869.
• Udo CO, Robinson ED, Ijeruh OY, Nwankwo NC. Correlation between Transabdominal Sonographic Prostate Volume and Anthropometric Parameters. J Med Ultrasound. 2022 May 19;30(4):261-265. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmu.jmu_183_21.