Randomized trial of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy to prevent infection complications.

Authors

null

Jim C. Hu

Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY

Jim C. Hu , Andrew Vickers , Mohamad E. Allaf , Behfar Ehdaie , Andrew J Cohen , Benjamin T Ristau , David Green , Misop Han , Michael Rezaee , Christian P. Pavlovich , Jeffrey S. Montgomery , Keith Kowalczyk , Ashley Ross , Shilajit Kundu , Hiten D Patel , Gerald J Wang , John N Graham , Melissa Assel , Anthony J Schaeffer , Edward M. Schaeffer

Organizations

Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, Brady Urologic Institute at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL

Research Funding

National Cancer Institute

Background: Transrectal prostate biopsy is the predominant approach to prostate cancer detection in the U.S. and worldwide. The transperineal approach is traditionally preformed under general anesthesia. Recent advances enable prostate biopsy to be performed through the skin of the perineum (transperineal) under local anesthesia. There are potential advantages to this clean, percutaneous approach over the inherently contaminated transrectal approach. However, comparative evidence is limited. Methods: In a multicenter, randomized trial, we used two-stage consent and assigned participants with suspicion for prostate cancer to undergo transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis vs. transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis. The primary outcome was post-biopsy infection, with secondary outcomes of urinary retention, significant bleeding, cancer detection, and a numerical rating scale (0-10) for biopsy-related pain and discomfort during 7-days post-biopsy. Results: Six-hundred fifty-eight participants underwent randomization, and 567 (86%) of participants were included in the intent to treat analysis. Seventy-nine men declined to participate. There were zero transperineal versus 4 (1.4%) transrectal biopsy infections (adjusted difference -1.4%; 95% confidence interval -3.2, 0.3; P=0.059). Rates of other complications were very low and similar by approach. Importantly, detection of clinically significant cancer was similar (53% transperineal vs. 50% transrectal, adjusted difference 2.0%; 95% CI -6.0, 10; p=0.6). Participants undergoing transperineal biopsy experienced worse periprocedural pain (0.6 adjusted difference [0-10 scale] 95% CI 0.2, 0.9; P=0.002), but the effect was small and resolved by 7-days. Conclusions: Office-based transperineal biopsy is tolerable, does not compromise cancer detection and likely reduces the risk of infection without antibiotic prophylaxis, thereby improving antibiotic stewardship. Altogether, our findings support office based transperineal prostate biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis as the new standard of care for prostate cancer detection with per patient and population-based antibiotic stewardship and healthcare cost benefits. Finally, two-stage consent facilitates accrual for surgical randomized trials, as evidenced by the relatively low rate of participants declining and withdrawing from the trial. Clinical trial information: NCT04815876.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2024 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Rapid Oral Abstract Session

Session Title

Rapid Oral Abstract Session A: Prostate Cancer

Track

Prostate Cancer - Advanced,Prostate Cancer - Localized

Sub Track

Diagnostics and Imaging

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT04815876

Citation

J Clin Oncol 42, 2024 (suppl 4; abstr 261)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2024.42.4_suppl.261

Abstract #

261

Abstract Disclosures

Similar Abstracts

First Author: Benjamin Lichtbroun

Abstract

2020 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Transperineal prostate biopsies without antibiotic prophylaxis: Safety evaluation of the first 65 patients.

First Author: Tobias Kohl

Abstract

2023 ASCO Annual Meeting

Longitudinal variability in symptom burden for patients with prostate cancer (PC).

First Author: Risa Liang Wong

First Author: Christopher J.D. Wallis