Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp 6965–6970 | Cite as

Comparison of analgesic techniques in MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy

  • M. Quentin
  • C. Arsov
  • T. Ullrich
  • B. Valentin
  • A. Hiester
  • D. Blondin
  • P. Albers
  • G. Antoch
  • L. SchimmöllerEmail author
Urogenital
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate different analgesic techniques in MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy (IB-GB) regarding the influence on patient procedural experience of pain.

Methods

Two hundred fifty-two consecutive patients who had received an IB-GB either with intrarectal instillation of 2% lidocaine gel (n = 126, group A) or with periprostatic nerve block (PPNB) with 2% mepivacaine (n = 126, group B) were retrospectively included in this study. Pain scores were measured on a visual analog scale, the operating room time (ORT) was recorded for each biopsy and correlations between the parameters were analysed.

Results

Pain scores for IB-GB were slightly lower in group B compared with group A (2.0 ± 1.9; 2.4 ± 1.7; p = 0.02). In group A, significantly more targeted biopsy cores were acquired (group B: 5.2 ± 1.1; group A: 5.6 ± 0.8; p < 0.01). ORT was comparable and not significantly different in both groups. There was only a weak correlation between pain scores and ORT in group B (rS = 0.22; p = 0.01), but no correlation between pain scores and the number of biopsy cores or the prostate volume.

Conclusions

Pain levels are generally low for MRI-guided in-bore biopsy using either PPNB or intrarectal instillation of lidocaine gel. A statistically significant, slightly lower pain score was documented for PPNB and might be preferred when the focus is analgesia. On the other hand, due to the minor difference and easier administration, intrarectal gel instillation seems to be a reasonable practice for standard analgesia for MRI-guided in-bore biopsy.

Key Points

• Pain levels were low for MRI-guided in-bore biopsy using either PPNB or intrarectal instillation of lidocaine gel as analgesic method.

• PPNB prior to IB-GB resulted in a slightly lower pain score but required a higher effort.

• Intrarectal gel anaesthesia seems to be a reasonable practice for standard analgesia for IB-GB in an outpatient setting.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Analgesics Image-guided biopsy Magnetic resonance–guided interventional procedures 

Abbreviations

C-GB

Cognitive fusion–guided biopsy

EAU

European Association of Urology

FUS-GB

MRI/US fusion–guided prostate biopsy

IB-GB

MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy

IQR

Interquartile range

mpMRI

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

ORT

Operating room time

PCa

Prostate cancer

PPNB

Periprostatic nerve block

PSA

Prostate-specific antigen

rS

Spearman correlation coefficient

TRUS

Transrectal ultrasound-guided

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Lars Schimmöller.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported:

Some patients in study group A were previously enrolled in a prospective randomised trial assessing the diagnostic efficacy of IB-GB and FUS-GB (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02220517; Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, et al (2015) Eur Urol).

Patients in study group B were previously enrolled in a prospective randomised trial assessing the diagnostic efficacy of IB-GB in comparison with TRUS-GB in biopsy-naïve men with elevated PSA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01553838; Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, et al (2014) J Urol).

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schimmöller L, Blondin D, Arsov C et al (2016) MRI-guided in-bore biopsy: differences between prostate cancer detection and localization in primary and secondary biopsy settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:92–99.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14579 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D et al (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 68:713–720.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C et al (2014) Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 192:1374–1379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.090 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L et al (2017) Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 71:517–531.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franiel T, Quentin M, Mueller-Lisse U et al (2016) MRT der Prostata: Empfehlungen zur Vorbereitung und Durchführung. RoFo 189:21–28.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-119451 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischbach F, Wien L, Krueger S et al (2018) Feasibility study of MR-guided transgluteal targeted in-bore biopsy for suspicious lesions of the prostate at 3 tesla using a freehand approach. Eur Radiol 28:2690–2699.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5187-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Penzkofer T, Tuncali K, Fedorov A et al (2015) Transperineal in-bore 3-T MR imaging–guided prostate biopsy: a prospective clinical observational study. Radiology 274:170–180.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14140221 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    SONG S-H, KIM JK, SONG K et al (2006) Effectiveness of local anaesthesia techniques in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized study. Int J Urol 13:707–710.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01390.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adamakis I, Mitropoulos D, Haritopoulos K et al (2004) Pain during transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy: a randomized prospective trial comparing periprostatic infiltration with lidocaine with the intrarectal instillation of lidocaine-prilocain cream. World J Urol 22:281–284.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-003-0386-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodriguez A, Kyriakou G, Leray E et al (2003) Prospective study comparing two methods of anaesthesia for prostate biopsies: apex periprostatic nerve block versus intrarectal lidocaine gel: review of the literature. Eur Urol 44:195–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00188-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stirling BN, Shockley KF, Carothers GG, Maatman TJ (2002) Comparison of local anesthesia techniques during transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies. Urology 60:89–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01671-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montoliu García A, Juan Escudero J, Fabuel Deltoro M et al (2010) Tolerance of prostate biopsy with use of local anesthesia and benzodiazepines: a randomized, prospective study. Actas Urol Esp 34:43–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2173-5786(10)70009-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Quentin M et al (2016) Comparison of patient comfort between MR-guided in-bore and MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsies within a prospective randomized trial. World J Urol 34:215–220.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1612-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pokorny M, Kua B, Esler R et al (2018) MRI-guided in-bore biopsy for prostate cancer: what does the evidence say? A case series of 554 patients and a review of the current literature. World J Urol 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2497-y
  16. 16.
    Bomers JGR, Bosboom DGH, Tigelaar GH et al (2017) Feasibility of a 2nd generation MR-compatible manipulator for transrectal prostate biopsy guidance. Eur Radiol 27:1776–1782.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4504-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Blondin D et al (2016) Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy: are two biopsy cores per MRI-lesion required? Eur Radiol 26:3858–3864.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4266-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Quentin
    • 1
  • C. Arsov
    • 2
  • T. Ullrich
    • 1
  • B. Valentin
    • 1
  • A. Hiester
    • 2
  • D. Blondin
    • 1
  • P. Albers
    • 2
  • G. Antoch
    • 1
  • L. Schimmöller
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Dusseldorf, Medical FacultyDusseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity Dusseldorf, Medical FacultyDusseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations