Is prostate biopsy safe in the elderly?

Purpose: The study was aimed to investigate the safety of the transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy in the elderly. Material and methods: Five hundered fifteen patients, who underwent prostate biopsy between 2017-2020, were included in the study. All patients' demographic data, comorbidities, laboratory findings, prostate volumes, prostate biopsy pathology results, and post-biopsy complications were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into 2 groups: group-1 consisting of patients under the age of 65 and group-2 with above the age of 65. Results: There were 244 in group-1 and 271 patients in group-2. The mean age of group-1 was 59.50±3.98, group-2 was 71.45±4.57 years. In group-1, post-biopsy fever was observed in 5 (2%), hematuria in 44 (18%), hemospermia in 79 (32.4%), and rectal bleeding in 7 (2.9%) patients. In group-2, post-biopsy fever was observed in 15 (5.5%), hematuria in 69 (25.5%), hemospermia in 21 (7.7%), and rectal bleeding in 11 (4.1%) patients. The severe sepsis findings were observed in 2 patients (0.2%) in group-1 and 6 (2.2%) in group-2. In the logisticregression-analysis, it was determined that the risk of complication increased significantly as the age, PSA, and higher PSA density. Conclusion: In our study, it was revealed that the risk of complications was higher in the elderly and that the complications observed may be more seriously. Therefore, we consider that a more careful approach should be taken in elderly patients to prevent the complications related with prostate biopsy.

Prostat biyopsisi yaşlılarda güvenli mi?

Amaç: Bu çalışma prostat kanseri tanısında yaygın olarak kullanılan transrektal ultrason (TRUS) eşliğinde prostat iğne biyopsisinin yaşlı hastalarda ne kadar güvenli olduğunu ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Gereç ve yöntem: 2017-2020 arasında prostat biyopsisi yapılan 515 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Tüm hastaların demografik verileri, ek hastalıkları, laboratuar bulguları, prostat hacimleri, prostat biyopsisi patoloji sonuçları, biyopsi sonrası gelişen komplikasyonlar retrospektif olarak incelendi. Hastalar 65 yaş altı olanlar grup 1 ve 65 yaş üstü olanlar grup 2 olarak 2 gruba ayrıldı. Her iki grupta prostat biyopsisi sonrası görülen komplikasyonlar karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Grup 1’de 244, grup 2’de ise 271 hasta vardı. Grup 1 yaş ortalaması 59,50±3,98, grup 2 yaş ortalaması 71,45±4,57 idi. Grup 1’de 5 hastada biyopsi sonrası ateş (%2), 44 hastada hematüri (%18), 79 hastada hematospermi (%32,4), 7 hastada ise rektal kanama (%2,9) izlendi. Grup 2’de ise 15 hastada biyopsi sonrası ateş (%5,5), 69 hastada hematüri (%25,5), 21 hastada hematospermi (%7,7), 11 hastada rektal kanama (%4,1) görüldü. Ancak bu komplikasyonlar dışında grup 1’de 2 hastada (%0,2), grup 2’de 6 hastada (%2,2) ciddi sepsis bulguları izlendi ve hastalar hospitalize edilerek tedavi edildi. Prostat biyopsisi sonrası komplikasyon görülmesini etkileyen risk faktörlerini incelemek için yapılan logistik regresyon analizinde yaş, PSA ve PSA dansitesi yükseldikçe komplikasyon görülme riskinin anlamlı olarak arttığı tespit edildi. Sonuç: Çalışmada yaşlı hastalarda komplikasyon görülme riskinin daha yüksek olduğunu ve görülen komplikasyonların daha ciddi olabileceği ortaya kondu. Bu nedenle yaşlı hastalarda prostat biyopsisi öncesi ve sonrası komplikasyon gelişimini önlemek için daha dikkatli yaklaşmak gerektiği düşünüldü.

Kaynakça

1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136:359-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210

2. Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, et al. EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2019;76:871. Available at: http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines. Accessed October 20, 2020

3. Wammack R, Djavan B, Mesut R, Susani M, Marberger M. Morbidity of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy in patients receiving immunosuppression. Urology 2001;58:1004-1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0090-4295(01)01406-6

4. Wenzel M, Theissen L, Preisser F, et al. Complication rates after TRUS guided transrectal systematic and MRI-targeted prostate biopsies in a high-risk region for antibiotic resistances. Front Surg 2020;7:7. https://doi. org/10.3389/fsurg.2020.00007

5. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:876-892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2013.05.049

6. Bruyère F, Malavaud S, Bertrand P, et al. Prosbiotate: a multicenter, prospective analysis of infectious complications after prostatebiopsy. J Urol 2015;193:145- 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.086

7. World Health Organization. Psychogeriatrics. Report of a WHO scientific group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1972;507:1-48. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/4627568/. Accessed October 20, 2020

8. Kaye KS, Anderson DJ, Sloane R, et al. The impact of surgical site infection on older operative patients. Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:46-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1532-5415.2008.02053.x

9. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis 1987;40:373. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021- 9681(87)90171-8

10. Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, et al. Complications After Systematic, Random, and Image-guided Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol 2017;71:353-365. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004

11. Pinsky P, Parnes H, Andriole G. Mortality and complications following prostate biopsy in the PLCO cancer screening trial. BJU Int 2014;113:254-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12368

12. Dell’Atti L. Ultrasound detection of prostatic calculi as a parameter to predict the appearance of hemospermia after a prostate biopsy. Int Braz J Urol 2017;43:1136-1143. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677- 5538.IBJU.2016.0005

13. Abdelkhalek M, Abdelshafy M, Elhelaly H, Kamal M. Hemosepermia after transrectal ultrasoundguided prostatic biopsy: a prospective study. Urol Ann 2013;5:30-33. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974- 7796.106963

14. Brewster DH, Fischbacher CM, Nolan J, Nowell S, Redpath D, Nabi G. Risk of hospitalization and death following prostate biopsy in Scotland. Public Health 2017;142:102-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. puhe.2016.10.006

15. Toner L, Bolton D, Lawrentschuk N. Prevention of sepsis prior to prostate biopsy. ICUrology 2016;57:94- 99. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2016.57.2.94

16. Anderson E, Leahy O, Cheng A, Grummet J. Risk factors for infection following prostate biopsy - a case control study. BMC Infect Dis 2015;15:580. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12879-015-1328-7

17. Jones T, Radtke J.P, Hadaschik B, Marks L. Optimizing safety and accuracy of prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 2016;26:472-480. https://doi.org/10.1097/ MOU.0000000000000310

18. Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, et al. Sepsis and “superbugs”: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int 2014;114:384-388. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12536

19. Loeb S, Carter H, Berndt S, Ricker W, Schaeffer E. Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2013;189:867-870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. juro.2012.10.005 Ethics commi

Kaynak Göster