Search

Aim: To present a summary of the updated guidelines of the Italian Prostate Biopsies Group following the best recent evidence of the literature., Materials and Methods: A systematic review of the new data emerging from 2012-2015 was performed by a panel of 14 selected Italian experts in urology, pathology and radiology. The experts collected articles published in the English-language literature by performing a search using Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library database. The articles were evaluated using a systematic weighting and grading of the level of the evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework system., Results: An initial prostate biopsy is strongly recommended when i) prostate specific antigen (PSA) >10 ng/ml, ii) digital rectal examination is abnormal, iii) multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) ≥4, even if it is not recommended. The use of mpMRI is strongly recommended only in patients with previous negative biopsy. At least 12 cores should be taken in each patient plus targeted (fusion or cognitive) biopsies of suspicious area (at mpMRI or transrectal ultrasound). Saturation biopsies are optional in all settings. The optimal strategy for reducing infection complications is still a controversial topic and the instruments to reduce them are actually weak. The adoption of Gleason grade groups in adjunction to the Gleason score when reporting prostate biopsy results is advisable., Conclusion: These updated guidelines and recommendations are intended to assist physicians and patients in the decision-making regarding when and how to perform a prostatic biopsy., (Copyright© 2017, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of meropenem single dose before transrectal prostate biopsy, instead of ciprofloxacin in the era of fluoroquinolones resistance., Methods: This prospective study included patients with indications for prostatic biopsy from January to December 2014. Those with known resistance in fluoroquinolones or meropenem or with decreased creatinine clearance were excluded. Patients were randomized into two groups, and statistical analysis was carried out. Group A received a 3-day course of ciprofloxacin 500 bid per os starting the day before biopsy. Group B received 1 g meropenem intravenously 1 h prior to the procedure. Patients were followed up for 15 days, and those with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and fever were called for hospitalization. Urine and blood cultures were obtained., Results: A total of 110 patients, 52-75 years old (mean 67.5, median 66) participated in the study, allocated in Groups A and B. After the procedure, 18 patients (32.7 %) of Group A reported macroscopic hematuria, while 10 (18.2 %) reported rectal blood loss. Nine patients (16.3 %) presented because of fever and LUTS. One of them developed septic shock and died in the ICU. Cultures revealed multi-resistant E. coli with high sensitivity to meropenem, and patients were treated accordingly. In Group B, 20 (36.3 %) patients presented with macroscopic hematuria and 9 (16.3 %) with rectal blood loss. One patient returned to hospital with LUTS and fever. Cultures revealed Klebsiella pneumoniae sensitive to colimycine., Conclusions: A single dose of meropenem prior to prostate biopsy is a safe and effective way to avoid the possible infectious complications in high-risk patients.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the clinical and microbiological characteristics between acute bacterial prostatitis and transrectal biopsy-related acute prostatitis., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 135 patients hospitalized for acute prostatitis in three urological centers between 2004 and 2013. Acute bacterial prostatitis was diagnosed according to typical symptoms, findings of physical examination, and laboratory test results. Clinical variables, laboratory test results, and anti-microbial susceptibility results were reviewed. Patients were classified into the spontaneous acute prostatitis group (S-ABP) or biopsy-related acute prostatitis (Bx-ABP) for comparison of their clinical, laboratory, and microbiological findings., Results: The mean age of all patients was 61.7 ± 12.9 years. Compared with S-ABP patients, Bx-ABP patients were significantly older, had larger prostate volumes, higher PSA values, higher peak fever temperatures, and higher incidence of septicemia and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Overall, of the 135 patients, 57.8% had positive bacterial urine and/or blood cultures. Bx-ABP patients had a higher incidence of bacterial (urine and/or blood) positive cultures compared to S-ABP patients (66.7% versus 55.6%). Escherichia coli was the predominant organism in both groups, but it was more common in Bx-ABP (88.9%) than in S-ABP (66.7%). Extended spectrum beta-lactamase -producing bacteria accounted for 64.7% of culture-positive patients in the Bx-ABP group compared to 13.3% in the S-ABP group., Conclusions: Bx-ABP patients showed a higher incidence of septicemia and antibiotic-resistant bacteria than S-ABP patients. These results have important implications for the management and antimicrobial treatment of Bx-ABP, which may well deserve to be considered a distinct prostatitis category., (Copyright © 2015 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the ability of prostate HistoScanning™ (PHS; Advanced Medical Diagnostics, Waterloo, Belgium) to detect, characterize and locally stage prostate cancer, by comparing it with transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, transperineal template prostate biopsies (TTBs) and whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens., Subjects and Methods: Study 1. We recruited 24 patients awaiting standard 12-core TRUS-guided biopsies of the prostate to undergo PHS immediately beforehand. We compared PHS with the TRUS-guided biopsy results in terms of their ability to detect cancer within the whole prostate and to localize it to the correct side and to the correct region of the prostate. Lesions that were suspicious on PHS were biopsied separately. Study 2. We recruited 57 patients awaiting TTB to have PHS beforehand. We compared PHS with the TTB pathology results in terms of their ability to detect prostate cancer within the whole gland and to localize it to the correct side and to the correct sextant of the prostate. Study 3. We recruited 24 patients awaiting radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer to undergo preoperative PHS. We compared PHS with standardized pathological analysis of the whole-mount prostatectomy specimens in terms of their measurement of total tumour volume within the prostate, tumour volume within prostate sextants and volume of index lesions identified by PHS., Results: The PHS-targeted biopsies had an overall cancer detection rate of 38.1%, compared with 62.5% with standard TRUS-guided biopsies. The sensitivity and specificity of PHS for localizing tumour to the correct prostate sextant, compared with standard TRUS-guided biopsies, were 100 and 5.9%, respectively. The PHS-targeted biopsies had an overall cancer detection rate of 13.4% compared with 54.4% for standard TTB. PHS had a sensitivity and specificity for cancer detection in the posterior gland of 100 and 13%, respectively, and for the anterior gland, 6 and 82%, respectively. We found no correlation between total tumour volume estimates from PHS and radical prostatectomy pathology (Pearson correlation coefficient -0.096). Sensitivity and specificity of PHS for detecting tumour foci ≥0.2 mL in volume were 63 and 53%., Conclusions: These three independent studies in 105 patients suggest that PHS does not reliably identify and characterize prostate cancer in the routine clinical setting., (© 2013 The Authors. BJU International © 2013 BJU International.)