Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(11): e059482, 2022 11 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2108275

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to compare prostate cancer detection rates between patients undergoing serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) vs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer screening. DESIGN: Phase III open-label randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Men 50 years of age and older with no history of PSA screening for ≥3 years, a negative digital rectal exam and no prior prostate biopsy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were recommended to undergo a prostate biopsy if their PSA was ≥2.6 ng/mL (PSA arm) or if they had a PIRADS score of 4 or 5 (MRI arm). Patients underwent an end-of-study PSA in the MRI arm. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Adenocarcinoma on prostate biopsy. Prostate biopsy rates and the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 525 patients were randomised, with 266 in the PSA arm and 248 in the MRI arm. Due to challenges with accrual and study execution during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was terminated early. In the PSA arm, 48 patients had an abnormal PSA and 28 (58%) agreed to undergo a prostate biopsy. In the MRI arm, 25 patients had a PIRADS score of 4 or 5 and 24 (96%) agreed to undergo a biopsy. The relative risk for MRI to recommend a prostate biopsy was 0.52 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.82, p=0.005), compared with PSA. The cancer detection rate for patients in the PSA arm was 29% (8 of 28) vs 63% (15 of 24, p=0.019) in the MRI arm, with a higher proportion of clinically significant cancer detected in the MRI arm (73% vs 50%). The relative risk for detecting cancer and clinically significant with MRI compared with PSA was 1.89 (95% CI 0.82 to 4.38, p=0.14) and 2.77 (95% CI 0.89 to 8.59, p=0.07), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate MRI as a stand-alone screening test reduced the rate of prostate biopsy. The number of clinically significant cancers detected was higher in the MRI arm, but this did not reach statistical significance. Due to early termination, the study was underpowered. More patients were willing to follow recommendations for prostate biopsy based on MRI results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02799303.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Prostatic Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Prostate-Specific Antigen , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostate/pathology , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Pandemics , Magnetic Resonance Imaging
2.
J Hosp Infect ; 125: 44-47, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1773503

ABSTRACT

Transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy of the prostate is associated with increased risk of post-procedural sepsis with associated morbidity, mortality, re-admission to hospital, and increased healthcare costs. In the study institution, active surveillance of post-procedural infection complications is performed by clinical nurse specialists for prostate cancer under the guidance of the infection prevention and control team. To protect hospital services for acute medical admissions related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, TRUS biopsy services were reduced nationally, with exceptions only for those patients at high risk of prostate cancer. In the study institution, this change prompted a complete move to transperineal (TP) prostate biopsy performed in outpatients under local anaesthetic. TP biopsies eliminated the risk of post-procedural sepsis and, consequently, sepsis-related admission while maintaining a service for prostate cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Prostatic Neoplasms , Sepsis , Anesthetics, Local , Biopsy/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostate/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/complications , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Sepsis/diagnosis , Sepsis/epidemiology , Sepsis/prevention & control , Ultrasonography, Interventional/adverse effects
5.
BMJ Case Rep ; 13(12)2020 Dec 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1020885

ABSTRACT

A 67-year-old man presented to his general practitioner with intermittent episodes of unilateral sciatica over a 2-month period for which he was referred for an outpatient MRI of his spine. This evidenced a significant lumbar vertebral mass that showed tight canal stenosis and compression of the cauda equina. The patient was sent to the emergency department for management by orthopaedic surgeons. He was mobilising independently, pain free on arrival and without neurological deficit on assessment. Clinically, this patient presented with no red flag symptoms of cauda equina syndrome or reason to suspect malignancy. In these circumstances, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not support radiological investigation of the spine outside of specialist services. However, in this case, investigation helped deliver urgent care for cancer that otherwise may have been delayed. This leads to the question, do the current guidelines meet clinical requirements?


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/diagnosis , Cauda Equina Syndrome/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Spinal Neoplasms/complications , Spinal Stenosis/diagnosis , Adenocarcinoma/complications , Adenocarcinoma/secondary , Adenocarcinoma/therapy , Aged , Cauda Equina/diagnostic imaging , Cauda Equina Syndrome/blood , Cauda Equina Syndrome/etiology , Cauda Equina Syndrome/therapy , Chemoradiotherapy/methods , Humans , Image-Guided Biopsy , Kallikreins/blood , Lumbar Vertebrae/diagnostic imaging , Lumbar Vertebrae/pathology , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Palliative Care/methods , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostate/pathology , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Prostatic Neoplasms/blood , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Spinal Neoplasms/blood , Spinal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Spinal Neoplasms/secondary , Spinal Stenosis/etiology , Spinal Stenosis/therapy , Ultrasonography, Interventional
6.
Urol Oncol ; 39(1): 73.e1-73.e8, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-696635

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Image guided biopsies are an integral part of prostate cancer evaluation. The effect of delaying biopsies of suspicious prostate mpMRI lesions is uncertain and clinically relevant during the COVID-19 crisis. We evaluated the association between biopsy delay time and pathologic findings on subsequent prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After obtaining IRB approval we reviewed the medical records of 214 patients who underwent image-guided transperineal fusion biopsy of the prostate biopsy between 2017 and 2019. Study outcomes included clinically significant (ISUP grade group ≥2) and any prostate cancer on biopsy. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between biopsy delay time and outcomes while adjusting for known predictors of cancer on biopsy. RESULTS: The study cohort included 195 men with a median age of 68. Median delay between mpMRI and biopsy was 5 months, and 90% of patients had a ≤8 months delay. A significant association was found between PI-RADS 5 lesions and no previous biopsies and shorter delay time. Delay time was not associated with clinically significant or any cancer on biopsy. A higher risk of significant cancer was associated with older age (P = 0.008), higher PSA (0.003), smaller prostate volume (<0.001), no previous biopsy (0.012) and PI-RADS 5 lesions (0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that under current practice, where men with PI-RADS 5 lesions and no previous biopsies undergo earlier evaluation, a delay of up to 8 months between imaging and biopsy does not affect biopsy findings. In the current COVID-19 crisis, selectively delaying image-guided prostate biopsies is unlikely to result in a higher rate of significant cancer.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Prostate/pathology , Time-to-Treatment , Aged , Humans , Image-Guided Biopsy , Logistic Models , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL