Original Articles
 

By Mr. Mohammad Dauleh , Mr. Agapios gkentzis , Dr. Simon Bluhm
Corresponding Author Mr. Mohammad Dauleh
WWL NHS Foundation Trust, - United Kingdom PR7 2FE
Submitting Author Mr. Mohammad Dauleh
Other Authors Mr. Agapios gkentzis
WWL NHS Foundation Trust, Urology Dept, - United Kingdom WN1 2NN

Dr. Simon Bluhm
WWL NHS Foundation Trust, Urology Dept, - United Kingdom WN1 2NN

UROLOGY

Prostate Cancer, Biopsy, Mortality

Dauleh M, gkentzis A, Bluhm S. Incidence of Trans Rectal Ultra Sound Guided Prostatic Biopsy Related Mortality. WebmedCentral UROLOGY 2012;3(10):WMC003757
doi: 10.9754/journal.wmc.2012.003757

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License(CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
No
Submitted on: 05 Oct 2012 10:22:58 AM GMT
Published on: 05 Oct 2012 05:37:29 PM GMT

Abstract


TRUS prostatic biopsy related mortality has been reported to be 1.3%. We felt that this was too high and did not reflect our experience.

The objective of this study was to look at the TRUS related mortality in our centre.

Material and Methods: Electronic search was carried out on all the patients who had TRUS prostatic biopsy between January 2004 and July 2010.

Results: Two thousands two hundred and fifteen patients had TRUS guided prostatic biopsy in that period. Eighty four mortalities were cited. Only one was TRUS biopsy related (0.04%).

Conclusion: The high mortality rate reported by Gallia et al was not reflected in our study. Further larger studies are needed to establish the true mortality incidence with TRUS prostatic biopsy.

Mean while patients should be counselled about the rare possibility of a fatal out come with TRUS prostatic biopsy.

Introduction


Prostate cancer is the most common cancer affecting men in the United Kingdom, representing a quarter of all new cases of cancer diagnosed in men. In 2007 the number of new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in Great Britain reached 36.101 cases. Prostate cancer in UK has tripled over the past three decades.(1 )

Majority of prostate cancer cases (60%) are diagnosed in men aged 70 years of age.

Prostate cancer is mainly diagnosed with Trans Rectal Ultra Sound guided biopsy.

Gallina etal was the first to report on TRUS prostatic biopsy related mortality(2 ).

The reported rate was 1.3%. We felt that this was too high and did not reflect our experience.

The objective of this study was to look at the TRUS related mortality in our centre.

Methods


Electronic search was carried out on all the patients who had TRUS prostatic biopsy between January 2004 and July 2010, using Electronic Patients Records (EPR). Notes of all deceased patients were examined to establish if their death was related to the prostatic biopsy.

Results


Two thousands two hundreds and fifteen patients had TRUS guided prostatic biopsy between January 04 and July 2010.

Age range was 42 – 85, average 64.

Eight Tru cut needle biopsies taken until January 06, then 12 cores became the standard. The procedure was done under local anaesthetic infiltration using 10ml of 1% lignocain  and antibiotic prophylaxis in the form of ciprofloxacin 500mg every 12 hours for three days, given one hour before the biopsy.

Eighty four mortalities were cited. Only one was TRUS biopsy related (0.04%).
68 years old fit and other wise healthy, died 2 days after the biopsy. Cause of death was intra cerebral haemorrhage secondary to septicaemia.

Discussion


The prostate gland is accessible trans-rectally. The first reported needle prostatic biopsy was carried out in 1930 by Ferguson (3) using gauge 18 needle and it was done trans- perieally. The first trans-rectal prostatic biopsy was reported by Astraldi in 1937 (4). The first diagnostic trans rectal ultra sound was reported by Takahashi and Ocli in 1963 (5), however the imaging quality was poor, and although Four years later Watarabe etal (6) were able to produce a clinically applicable images using a 3.5 MHz trans-rectal probe, it was until the mid 1980s and with the development of the 7MHz probe that TRUS guided prostatic biopsy increasingly became the standard way to diagnose prostate cancer. Initially it was trans-perineal and this was quickly taken over by the trans-rectal route.

The biopsy was performed as an out patient procedure under antibiotic cover and local anaesthetic infiltration, with the patient in the left lateral position. 10 – 12 Trucut needle cores taken.

TRUS biopsy complications are will publicised (7,8,9,10). Bleeding was the main reported complication, with haematuria affecting 22 – 56% (8,9,10) while rectal bleeding affects 17 – 32% of patients ( 9,10 ), majority settling down within a week.

Haematospermia was reported in 12 – 50% of patients, and this may take up to 12 weeks to resolve (8,9).

Other less frequents complications has been reported, such as acute retention of urine affecting 0.4 – 2% of patients, those with high IPSS (International Prostate Symptom Score) are at increased risk. Acute epididymitis 0.2% - 0.6% (7,10); vasovagal syncope 0.05% (7); acute prostatitis 0.6% - 3.8% (7,10).

The most serious complication was sepsis affecting 0.5 – 1.7% of patients (8,10).

Hospitalisation rate was 0.2 – 6.6 % (7,8,9,10).

A med line search was carried out to look at TRUS prosatic biopsy related mortality. Only one report was found by Galia etal(2). The team investigated the cause of death in 22000 patients who had TRUS guided proatatic biopsy up to 120 days after the biopsy. Their TRUS related mortality was 1.3%.

The high mortality rate reported by Gallia etal was not reflected in our study, part of this could be the smaller sample we had.

Conclusion(s)


Further larger studies are needed to establish the true mortality incidence with TRUS prostatic biopsy. Mean while patients should be counselled about the rare possibility of a fatal out come with TRUS prostatic biopsy.

Abbreviation(s)


TRUS - Trans Rectal Ultra Sound

Reference(s)


1. Cancer research UK. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@sta/documents/generalcontent/01 8070.pd. Accessed Sep. 2010.
2. A. Gallina, F. Montorsi, J. Walz, M. Graefen, A. Briganti, P. Perrotte, F. Saad, F. Benard, L. Valiquette, P. I. Karakiewicz. Mortality at 120 days after prostatic biopsy: A population-based study of 22,175 men. Int. J. Cancer 2008. 1; 123(3):647-52.
3. Ferguson RS. Prostatic neoplasms: their diagnosis by needle puncture and aspiration. Am J Surg. 1930; 9:507.
4. Astraldi A. Diagnosis of cancer of the prostate: biopsy by rectal route. Urol Cutan Rev 1937; 41: 421–7
5. Takahashi H, Ouchi T. The ultrasonic diagnosis in the field of urology. Proc Jap Soc Ultrasonics Med 1963; 3: 7– 8.
6. Watanabe H, Igari D,Tanahasi Y, et al. Development and application of new equipment for transrectal ultrasonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1974; 2:91-98.
7. Chiang IN, Chang SJ, Pu YS, Huang KH, Yu HJ, Huang CY. Major complications and associated risk factors of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: a retrospective study of 1875 cases in
Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2007 Nov; 106(11):929-34
8. Raaijmakers R, Kirkels WJ, Roobol MJ, Wildhagen MF, Schrder FH. Complication rates and risk factors of 5802 transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies of the prostate within a population-based screening program. Urology. 2002 Nov;60(5):826-30
9. Ghani KR, Dundas D, Patel U. Bleeding after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: a study of 7- day morbidity after a six-, eight- and 12-core biopsy protocol. BJU Int. 2004 Nov; 94(7):1014-20
10. Carlos Marcio Nobrega deJesus, Luiz Antonio Correa and Carlos Roberto Padovani. Complications and risk factors in trans rectal ultrasound guided prostatic biopsy. Sau Paulo Med J. 2006; 124(4):198-202.

Source(s) of Funding


None

Competing Interests


None

Disclaimer


This article has been downloaded from WebmedCentral. With our unique author driven post publication peer review, contents posted on this web portal do not undergo any prepublication peer or editorial review. It is completely the responsibility of the authors to ensure not only scientific and ethical standards of the manuscript but also its grammatical accuracy. Authors must ensure that they obtain all the necessary permissions before submitting any information that requires obtaining a consent or approval from a third party. Authors should also ensure not to submit any information which they do not have the copyright of or of which they have transferred the copyrights to a third party.
Contents on WebmedCentral are purely for biomedical researchers and scientists. They are not meant to cater to the needs of an individual patient. The web portal or any content(s) therein is neither designed to support, nor replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician. Your use of the WebmedCentral site and its contents is entirely at your own risk. We do not take any responsibility for any harm that you may suffer or inflict on a third person by following the contents of this website.

Comments
0 comments posted so far

Please use this functionality to flag objectionable, inappropriate, inaccurate, and offensive content to WebmedCentral Team and the authors.

 

Author Comments
0 comments posted so far

 

What is article Popularity?

Article popularity is calculated by considering the scores: age of the article
Popularity = (P - 1) / (T + 2)^1.5
Where
P : points is the sum of individual scores, which includes article Views, Downloads, Reviews, Comments and their weightage

Scores   Weightage
Views Points X 1
Download Points X 2
Comment Points X 5
Review Points X 10
Points= sum(Views Points + Download Points + Comment Points + Review Points)
T : time since submission in hours.
P is subtracted by 1 to negate submitter's vote.
Age factor is (time since submission in hours plus two) to the power of 1.5.factor.

How Article Quality Works?

For each article Authors/Readers, Reviewers and WMC Editors can review/rate the articles. These ratings are used to determine Feedback Scores.

In most cases, article receive ratings in the range of 0 to 10. We calculate average of all the ratings and consider it as article quality.

Quality=Average(Authors/Readers Ratings + Reviewers Ratings + WMC Editor Ratings)