Initial pain score during viscous lidocaine instillation and clinical characteristics as predictors of overall pain in fusion prostate biopsy
Background: Prostate biopsy, while essential, often causes discomfort that can affect patient experience and adherence to follow-up procedures. Objective: This study aimed to identify factors associated with pain during fusion prostate biopsy to optimize the experience of prostate cancer diagnosis and monitoring. The primary goal was to assess the relationship between pain during viscous lidocaine (lido) instillation and periprostatic nerve block with the overall pain experienced by patients undergoing prostate biopsy. Methods: We queried our database for patients who underwent transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy from March 2020 to July 2023 and had complete pain scores (1–10) recorded during lido instillation, periprostatic nerve block, biopsy, and overall. Results: A total of 779 patients were included. The mean pain scores during lido instillation, periprostatic block, biopsy, and overall were 0.11, 2.8, 3.5, and 3.6, respectively. Multivariable analysis revealed that patients with a pain score during lido instillation of >2 (odds ratio [OR] = 10.28; p=0.027) patients with periprostatic block of >2 (OR = 7.49; p<0.001), black patients (OR = 2.838; p<0.001), and patients on active surveillance (OR = 1.648; p=0.003) were more likely to experience the upper quartile (UQ) of overall pain. Men with abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) findings were less likely to develop the UQ of overall pain than men with normal DRE findings (OR: 0.586; p=0.004). This finding suggests that digital rectal examination during the initial clinic visit can help identify patients who may benefit from sedation during prostate biopsy, potentially improving patient comfort and procedural experience. Conclusion: This finding suggests that digital rectal examination during the initial clinic visit can help identify patients who may benefit from sedation during prostate biopsy, potentially improving patient comfort and procedural experience.
- Demirel HC, Davis JW. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Overview of the technique, clinical applications in prostate biopsy and future directions. Turk J Urol. 2018;44(2):93-102. doi: 10.5152/tud.2018.56056
- Descotes JL. Diagnosis of prostate cancer. Asian J Urol. 2019;6(2):129-136. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.11.007
- Myrga J, Erpenbeck S, Sharbaugh D, et al. Presented at: 74th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Section of the American Urologic Association, Inc. Charlotte, North Carolina. Poster 22; 2022. Available from: https://nsaua.org/meetings/upcoming-meetings/schedule.aspx [Last accessed on 2022 Oct 25].
- Chen DY. Fox Chase Uses Innovative Transperineal Biopsy Technique for Detecting Prostate Cancer to Reduce the Chance of Biopsy-Related Complications. Philadelphia PA, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Temple University Health System Inc.; 2020. Available from: https://www.foxchase.org/blog/2017-09- 17-innovative-transperineal-biopsy-technique-for-detecting-prostate-cancer-to-reduce-the-chance-of-biopsy-related-complications
- Mian BM, Feustel PJ, Aziz A, et al. Complications following transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: Results of the ProBE-PC randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2024;211(2):205-213. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003788
- Rempega G, Rajwa P, Kępiński M, et al. The severity of pain in prostate biopsy depends on the biopsy sector. J Pers Med. 2023;13(3):431. doi: 10.3390/jpm13030431
- Kinsella N, Stattin P, Cahill D, et al. Factors influencing Men’s choice of and adherence to active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: A mixed-method systematic review. Eur Urol. 2018;74(3):261-280. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.02.026
- Kato T, Sugimoto M. Quality of life in active surveillance for early prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2020;27(4):296-306. doi: 10.1111/iju.14202
- Brown AM, Elbuluk O, Mertan F, et al. Recent advances in image-guided targeted prostate biopsy. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(6):1788-1799. doi: 10.1007/s00261-015-0353-8
- Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A, et al. Compliance rates with the prostate cancer research international active surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers. Eur Urol. 2015;68(5):814-821. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.012
- Sonmez G, Tombul ST, Demirtas T, Demirtas A. Risk factors associated with pain in fusion prostate biopsy. Prostate Int. 2020;8(4):185-189. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2020.05.004
- Detsky JS, Ghiam AF, Mamedov A, et al. Impact of biopsy compliance on outcomes for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020;204(5):934-940. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001091
- Vanoli S, Grobet-Jeandin E, Windisch O, Valerio M, Benamran D. Evolution of anxiety management in prostate biopsy under local anesthesia: A narrative review. World J Urol. 2024;42(1):43. doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04723-2
- Murciano-Goroff YR, Wolfsberger LD, Parekh A, et al. Variability in MRI vs. ultrasound measures of prostate volume and its impact on treatment recommendations for favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: A case series. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:200. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-9-200
- Cebeci OÖ, Ozkan A. An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: A real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study. PeerJ. 2021;9:e12144. doi: 10.7717/peerj.12144
- Nazir B. Pain during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and the role of periprostatic nerve block: What radiologists should know. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15(5):543-553. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2014.15.5.543
- Krausewitz P, Schmeller H, Luetkens J, et al. Prospective analysis of pain expectancy and experience during MR-fusion prostate biopsy: Does reality match patients’ expectancy? World J Urol. 2022;40(9):2239-2244. doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04083-3
- Grinberg AS, Sellinger JJ, Sprenkle PC, et al. Effect of diaphragmatic breathing on procedural anxiety during transrectal prostate biopsy. Urology. 2020;137:26-32. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.12.024
- Ruano A, García-Torres F, Gálvez-Lara M, Moriana JA. Psychological and non-pharmacologic treatments for pain in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2022;63(5):e505-e520. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.12.021
