NCCN Guidelines® recommend annual prostate biopsies for men with low risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. We determined whether erectile function decreases with the number of biopsies experienced.
During a median 3.2-year followup after prostate cancer diagnosis in 2003 to 2010 at our institution 427 men on active surveillance underwent a total of 1,197 biopsies and provided 1,398 erectile function evaluations via the Sexual Health Inventory for Men questionnaire. For analysis we decomposed the 25-point questionnaire responses into a 5-point erectile function score and a 3-level sexual activity status. We used separate models adjusted for patient characteristics to determine whether either outcome varied with biopsy exposure.
At diagnosis the median age was 61 years and median prostate specific antigen was 5.3 ng/ml. Of the cases 70% were clinical stage cT1 and 93% were Gleason score less than 7. Of biopsies followed by evaluations 40% were the first undergone by the patient and 9% were the fifth to ninth. At the first erectile function evaluation 15% of men were inactive, 8% engage in stimulation and 77% engaged in intercourse. Sexual activity level changed in greater than 20% of respondents between evaluations. Adjusted erectile function scores were not associated with biopsy exposure cross-sectionally or longitudinally but they corresponded with the 50th, 63rd and 80th percentiles of erectile function by increasing sexual activity level. Similarly, sexual activity was not associated with biopsy exposure. Separated outcomes were more accurate and informative than Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores.
Our study had high power to detect erectile function-biopsy associations but it estimated that the effects were negligible. We recommend erectile function scores over Sexual Health Inventory for Men scores to avoid biased assessment of erectile function.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: AimThe aim of this study was to examine the relationship between sexual dysfunction, repeat biopsies and other demographic and clinical factors in men on active surveillance (AS).Methods
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measures were administered at enrollment and every 6 months to assess quality of life (QOL), psychosocial and urological health outcomes. Using mixed-effects models, we examined the impact of repeat biopsies, total number of cores taken, anxiety, age, and comorbidity on sexual function over the first 24 months of enrolling in AS.Main Outcome MeasuresPROs included the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) Sexual Function (SF) subscale, the American Urological Association-Symptom Index (AUA-SI), and the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC).ResultsAt enrollment (n = 195), mean age was 66.5 ± 6.8 with a mean EPIC-26 SF score of 61.4 ± 30.4. EPIC-26 SF scores steadily decreased to 53.9 ± 30.7 at 24 months (P < 0.01). MAX-PC scores also progressively decreased over time (P = 0.03). Factors associated with lower EPIC-26 scores over time included age, unemployed status, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hypertension (all P < 0.05). Higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was associated with a more rapid decline in EPIC-26 SF over time (P = 0.03). In multivariable analysis, age, diabetes, and PSA × time interaction remained significant predictors of diminished sexual function. Anxiety, number of biopsies, and total cores taken did not predict sexual dysfunction or change over time in our cohort.Conclusions
Men on AS experienced a gradual decline in sexual function during the first 24 months of enrollment. Older age, PSA × time, and diabetes were all independent predictors of diminished sexual function over time. Anxiety, AUA-SI, the number of cores and the number of biopsies were not predictors of reduced sexual function in men in AS. Pearce SM, Wang CHE, Victorson DE, Helfand BT, Novakovic KR, Brendler CB, and Albaugh JA. A longitudinal study of predictors of sexual dysfunction in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Sex Med **;**–**.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose:
Diagnosis and precise risk stratification of prostate cancer is essential for individualized treatment decisions. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion has shown encouraging results for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. We critically evaluated magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy in routine clinical practice.
Materials and methods:
Included in this prospective study were 347 consecutive patients with findings suspicious for prostate cancer. Median age was 65 years (range 42 to 84) and mean prostate specific antigen was 9.85 ng/ml (range 0.5 to 104). Of the men 49% previously underwent transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies, which were negative, and 51% underwent primary biopsy. In all patients 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was done. Systematic stereotactic prostate biopsies plus magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies were performed in those with abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging data and biopsy results were analyzed. A self-designed questionnaire was sent to all men on further clinical history and biopsy adverse effects.
Of 347 patients biopsy samples of 200 (58%) showed prostate cancer and 73.5% of biopsy proven prostate cancer were clinically relevant according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria. On multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging 104 men had findings highly suspicious for prostate cancer. The tumor detection rate was 82.6% (86 of 104 men) with a Gleason score of 7 or greater in 72%. Overall targeted cores detected significantly more cancer than systematic biopsies (30% vs 8.2%). Of 94 patients without cancer suspicious lesions on magnetic resonance imaging 11 (11.7%) were diagnosed with intermediate risk disease. Regarding adverse effects, 152 of 300 patients (50.6%) reported mild hematuria, 26% had temporary erectile dysfunction and 2.6% needed short-term catheterization after biopsy. Nonseptic febrile urinary tract infections developed in 3 patients (1%).
Magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy provides high detection of clinically significant tumors. Since multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging still has some limitations, systematic biopsies should currently not be omitted. The morbidity of the transperineal saturation approach is reasonable and mainly self-limiting.
The Journal of urology 04/2013; 190(4). DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.043 · 4.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Prostate biopsy is commonly performed for cancer detection and management. The benefits and risks of prostate biopsy are germane to ongoing debates about prostate cancer screening and treatment.
To perform a systematic review of complications from prostate biopsy.
A literature search was performed using PubMed and Embase, supplemented with additional references. Articles were reviewed for data on the following complications: hematuria, rectal bleeding, hematospermia, infection, pain, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), urinary retention, erectile dysfunction, and mortality.
After biopsy, hematuria and hematospermia are common but typically mild and self-limiting. Severe rectal bleeding is uncommon. Despite antimicrobial prophylaxis, infectious complications are increasing over time and are the most common reason for hospitalization after biopsy. Pain may occur at several stages of prostate biopsy and can be mitigated by anesthetic agents and anxiety-reduction techniques. Up to 25% of men have transient LUTS after biopsy, and <2% have frank urinary retention, with slightly higher rates reported after transperineal template biopsy. Biopsy-related mortality is rare.
Preparation for biopsy should include antimicrobial prophylaxis and pain management. Prostate biopsy is frequently associated with minor bleeding and urinary symptoms that usually do not require intervention. Infectious complications can be serious, requiring prompt management and continued work into preventative strategies.
European Urology 06/2013; 64(6). DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049 · 13.94 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.