Research Article

Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates?

Volume: 11 Number: 2 June 15, 2020
EN TR

Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates?

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the 18G and 20G biopsy needle in transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PBx) for diagnosis of prostate cancer in terms of sample quality, cancer detection rates, pain and other complications.

Material and Method: 120 patients with PSA (prostate specific antigen) values ​​of 2.5-10 ng/ml, prostate volumes of 30-80 cc and ages of 50-70 were randomly divided into two groups. However, the arm of the study performed with 20G needle biopsy was stopped due to the very low cancer detection rate when the number of patients reached 32. All patients in Group 2 were rebiopsied with an 18G needle 3 months later. In all patients, complications and cancer detection rates were evaluated in during and after the procedure.

Results: The cancer detection rates in group 2 were significantly lower compared to group 1. The VAS 2 score was lower in group 2 (p=0.008), but there was no statistically significant difference in other VAS scores. In both groups, the rate of side effects and complications related to biopsy were similar. All patients in Group 2 were rebiopsied with an 18G needle. The rate of cancer detection was significantly higher in patients who underwent TRUS-PBx with 18G needle (p=0.0055).

Conclusion: We found that the rate of obtaining sufficient sample for TRUS-PBx and detection of cancer was very low in 20G compared to 18G needle. 20G needle had no superiority to 18G needle in all complications, including pain. We concluded that 20-gauge needle prostate biopsy was not an accurate approach in our study

Keywords

References

  1. 1.​ Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. European urology. 2013;64(6):876-92.
  2. 2.​ Wang J, Wang L, Du Y, He D, Chen X, Li L, et al. Addition of intrarectal local analgesia to periprostatic nerve block improves pain control for transrectal ultrasonography‐guided prostate biopsy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Journal of Urology. 2015;22(1):62-8.
  3. 3. ​Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, Cookson MS, Gomella LG, Troyer D, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. The Journal of urology. 2013;189(6):2039-46.
  4. 4.​ Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. European urology. 2014;65(2):467-79.
  5. 5.​ Ochiai A, Babaian RJ. Update on prostate biopsy technique. Current opinion in urology. 2004;14(3):157-62.
  6. 6. ​Cicione A, Cantiello F, De Nunzio C, Tubaro A, Damiano R. Prostate biopsy quality is independent of needle size: a randomized single-center prospective study. Urologia internationalis. 2012;89(1):57-60.
  7. 7.​ Wan B, Li C, Wang J, Zhao W, Fu Q, Zhang K. Diagnostic yield and complications using a 20 gauge prostate biopsy needle versus a standard 18 gauge needle: a randomized controlled study. Urology journal. 2015;12(5):2329-33.
  8. 8.​ Kilciler M, Demir E, Bedir S, Erten K, Kilic C, Peker AF. Pain scores and early complications of transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: effect of patient position. Urologia internationalis. 2007;79(4):361-3.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

June 15, 2020

Submission Date

April 30, 2020

Acceptance Date

May 28, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 11 Number: 2

APA
Baş, E. (2020). Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates? Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(2), 242-247. https://doi.org/10.22312/sdusbed.729492
AMA
1.Baş E. Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates? Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020;11(2):242-247. doi:10.22312/sdusbed.729492
Chicago
Baş, Ercan. 2020. “Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates?”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 11 (2): 242-47. https://doi.org/10.22312/sdusbed.729492.
EndNote
Baş E (June 1, 2020) Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates? Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 11 2 242–247.
IEEE
[1]E. Baş, “Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates?”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 242–247, June 2020, doi: 10.22312/sdusbed.729492.
ISNAD
Baş, Ercan. “Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates?”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 11/2 (June 1, 2020): 242-247. https://doi.org/10.22312/sdusbed.729492.
JAMA
1.Baş E. Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates? Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020;11:242–247.
MLA
Baş, Ercan. “Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates?”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 2, June 2020, pp. 242-7, doi:10.22312/sdusbed.729492.
Vancouver
1.Ercan Baş. Can Smaller Needle Size In Prostate Biopsy Reduce Complications Without Affecting Sample Quality And Cancer Detection Rates? Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020 Jun. 1;11(2):242-7. doi:10.22312/sdusbed.729492