Complications of prostate biopsy

References

• Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 62(1), 10–29 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E. Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur. J. Cancer 46(4), 765–781 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sauvageot J, Carter HB. Use of repeat sextant and transition zone biopsies for assessing extent of prostate cancer. J. Urol. 158(5), 1886–1890 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleshner NE, O’Sullivan M, Fair WR. Prevalence and predictors of a positive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided needle biopsy of the prostate. J. Urol. 158(2), 505–508; discussion 508 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabbani F, Stroumbakis N, Kava BR, Cookson MS, Fair WR. Incidence and clinical significance of false-negative sextant prostate biopsies. J. Urol. 159(4), 1247–1250 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antoniewicz AA, Zapała Ł, Borówka A, De Reijke T. Biopsy of the prostate – the urge to search for a new standard. CEJU 63(4), 166–175 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Challacombe B, Dasgupta P, Patel U, Amoroso P, Kirby R. Recognizing and managing the complications of prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 108(8), 1233–1234 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hasegawa T, Shimomura T, Yamada H et al. Fatal septic shock caused by transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate; a case report. Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 76(10), 893–897 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carlsson SV, Holmberg E, Moss SM et al. No excess mortality after prostate biopsy: results from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. BJU Int. 107(12), 1912–1917 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ecke TH, Gunia S, Bartel P, Hallmann S, Koch S, Ruttloff J. Complications and risk factors of transrectal ultrasound guided needle biopsies of the prostate evaluated by questionnaire. Urol. Oncol. 26(5), 474–478 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 60(5), 826–830 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rodríguez LV, Terris MK. Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: a prospective study and review of the literature. J. Urol. 160(6 Pt 1), 2115–2120 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silletti JP, Gordon GJ, Bueno R, Jaklitsch M, Loughlin KR. Prostate biopsy: past, present, and future. Urology 69(3), 413–416 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weber B, Saliken J, Jadavji T, Gray RR, Moore R. A near-fatal case of sepsis with an antibiotic-resistant organism complicating a routine transrectal prostate biopsy in a health care worker. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 2(5), 543–545 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J. Urol. 186(5), 1830–1834 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrick GS, Gutman S, Andreini H et al. Prostate cancer distribution in patients diagnosed by transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy. Eur. Urol. 52(3), 715–723 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein T, Palisaar RJ, Holz A, Brock M, Noldus J, Hinkel A. The impact of prostate biopsy and periprostatic nerve block on erectile and voiding function: a prospective study. J. Urol. 184(4), 1447–1452 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu MW, Sevilla EM, Raman L, Consigliere D, Siow WY, Tiong HY. Incidence of complications after transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy of the prostate in a local tertiary institution. Singapore Med. J. 52(10), 752–757 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Djavan B, Waldert M, Zlotta A et al. Safety and morbidity of first and repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsies: results of a prospective European prostate cancer detection study. J. Urol. 166(3), 856–860 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kakehi Y, Naito S; Japanese Urological Association. Complication rates of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a nation-wide survey in Japan. Int. J. Urol. 15(4), 319–321 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno Alarcón C, López González PA, López Cubillana P et al. [Morbidity and risk factors of transrectal prostate biopsy]. Actas Urol. Esp. 34(6), 531–536 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pinkhasov GI, Lin YK, Palmerola R et al. Complications following prostate needle biopsy requiring hospital admission or emergency department visits – experience from 1000 consecutive cases. BJU Int. 110(3), 369–374 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J. Urol. 183(3), 963–968 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenlehner FM, van Till JW, Magri V et al. National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) Symptom Evaluation in Multinational Cohorts of Patients with Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome. Eur. Urol. 63(5), 953–959 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ. Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur. Urol. 61(6), 1110–1114 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111(5), 518–526 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg. 240(2), 205–213 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuazu JR, Hruza M, Rassweiler JJ, de la Rosette JJ. The Clavien classification system to optimize the documentation of PCNL morbidity. Arch. Ital. Urol. Androl. 82(1), 20–22 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al.; European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Actas Urol. Esp. 33(2), 113–126 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carlsson SV, Holmberg E, Moss SM et al. No excess mortality after prostate biopsy: results from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. BJU Int. 107(12), 1912–1917 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Masood J, Hafeez A, Calleary J, Barua JM. Aspirin use and transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: a national survey. BJU Int. 99(5), 965–966 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burger W, Chemnitius JM, Kneissl GD, Rücker G. Low-dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention – cardiovascular risks after its perioperative withdrawal versus bleeding risks with its continuation – review and meta-analysis. J. Intern. Med. 257(5), 399–414 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giannarini G, Mogorovich A, Valent F et al. Continuing or discontinuing low-dose aspirin before transrectal prostate biopsy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Urology 70(3), 501–505 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herget EJ, Saliken JC, Donnelly BJ, Gray RR, Wiseman D, Brunet G. Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: relation between ASA use and bleeding complications. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 50(3), 173–176 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carmignani L, Picozzi S, Bozzini G et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies in patients taking aspirin for cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. Transfus. Apher. Sci. 45(3), 275–280 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among 3 protocols with 6, 10 and 15 cores. J. Urol. 171(4), 1478–1480; discussion 1480 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tüfek I, Akpinar H, Atug F et al. The impact of local anesthetic volume and concentration on pain during prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial. J. Endourol. 26(2), 174–177 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins GN, Lloyd SN, Hehir M, McKelvie GB. Multiple transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsies – true morbidity and patient acceptance. Br. J. Urol. 71(4), 460–463 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Irani J, Fournier F, Bon D, Gremmo E, Doré B, Aubert J. Patient tolerance of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Br. J. Urol. 79(4), 608–610 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tiong HY, Liew LC, Samuel M, Consigliere D, Esuvaranathan K. A meta-analysis of local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 10(2), 127–136 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker AE, Schelvan C, Rockall AG, Rickards D, Kellett MJ. Does pericapsular lignocaine reduce pain during transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy of the prostate? BJU Int. 90(9), 883–886 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lynn NN, Collins GN, Brown SC, O’Reilly PH. Periprostatic nerve block gives better analgesia for prostatic biopsy. BJU Int. 90(4), 424–426 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giannarini G, Autorino R, Valent F et al. Combination of perianal-intrarectal lidocaine-prilocaine cream and periprostatic nerve block for pain control during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a randomized, controlled trial. J. Urol. 181(2), 585–591; discussion 591 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scattoni V, Nava L, Roscigno M, Montorsi F, Rigatti P. Prostatic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy schemes and TRUS prostatic lesion-guided biopsies. Eur. Urol. Supl. 1, 21–27 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Kabay S, Sahin L, Yaylak F, Aydin T. Caudal block anaesthesia for transrectal biopsy of prostate in patients with anal rectal disorders. Central European J. Urol. 62(1), 15–20 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Rietbergen JB, Kruger AE, Kranse R, Schröder FH. Complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic sextant biopsies of the prostate: evaluation of complication rates and risk factors within a population-based screening program. Urology 49(6), 875–880 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindert KA, Kabalin JN, Terris MK. Bacteremia and bacteriuria after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J. Urol. 164(1), 76–80 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zegarra Montes LZ, Sanchez Mejia AA, Loza Munarriz CA, Gutierrez EC. Semen and urine culture in the diagnosis of chronic bacterial prostatitis. Int. Braz J Urol 34(1), 30–37, discussion 38 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gurbuz C, Canat L, Atis G, Caskurlu T. Reducing infectious complications after transrectal prostate needle biopsy using a disposable needle guide: is it possible? Int. Braz J Urol 37(1), 79–84; discussion 85 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Manecksha RP, Nason GJ, Cullen IM et al. Prospective study of antibiotic prophylaxis for prostate biopsy involving >1100 men. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012, 650858 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carignan A, Roussy JF, Lapointe V, Valiquette L, Sabbagh R, Pépin J. Increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? Eur. Urol. 62(3), 453–459 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aron M, Rajeev TP, Gupta NP. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate: a randomized controlled study. BJU Int. 85(6), 682–685 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batura D, Rao GG, Bo Nielsen P, Charlett A. Adding amikacin to fluoroquinolone-based antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces prostate biopsy infection rates. BJU Int. 107(5), 760–764 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosharafa AA, Torky MH, El Said WM, Meshref A. Rising incidence of acute prostatitis following prostate biopsy: fluoroquinolone resistance and exposure is a significant risk factor. Urology 78(3), 511–514 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feliciano J, Teper E, Ferrandino M et al. The incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections after prostate biopsy – are fluoroquinolones still effective prophylaxis? J. Urol. 179(3), 952–955; discussion 955 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser AP, Novakovic K, Helfand BT. The impact of prostate biopsy on urinary symptoms, erectile function, and anxiety. Curr. Urol. Rep. 13(6), 447–454 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saraçoglu T, Unsal A, Taskin F, Sevinçok L, Karaman CZ. The impact of pre-procedural waiting period and anxiety level on pain perception in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Diagn. Interv. Radiol. 18(2), 195–199 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tsivian M, Qi P, Kimura M et al. The effect of noise-cancelling headphones or music on pain perception and anxiety in men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy. Urology 79(1), 32–36 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby R, Fitzpatrick JM. Optimising repeat prostate biopsy decisions and procedures. BJU Int. 109(12), 1750–1754 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gallina A, Suardi N, Montorsi F et al. Mortality at 120 days after prostatic biopsy: a population-based study of 22,175 men. Int. J. Cancer 123(3), 647–652 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fiard G, Descotes JL, Rambeaud JJ, Hohn N, Troccaz J, Long JA. MRI-guided targeted prostate biopsies in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review. Prog. Urol. 22(15), 903–912 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M et al. MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J. Urol. 30(2), 213–218 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 108(8 Pt 2), E171–E178 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO. MRI-guided and robotic-assisted prostate biopsy. Curr. Opin. Urol. 22(4), 316–319 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wright GL Jr. SELDI proteinchip MS: a platform for biomarker discovery and cancer diagnosis. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 2(6), 549–563 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wellmann A, Wollscheid V, Lu H et al. Analysis of microdissected prostate tissue with ProteinChip arrays–a way to new insights into carcinogenesis and to diagnostic tools. Int. J. Mol. Med. 9(4), 341–347 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueno R, Loughlin KR, Powell MH, Gordon GJ. A diagnostic test for prostate cancer from gene expression profiling data. J. Urol. 171(2 Pt 1), 903–906 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Porkka KP, Visakorpi T. Molecular mechanisms of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 45(6), 683–691 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar