Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

EXIT from TRansrectal prostate biopsies (TREXIT): sepsis rates of transrectal biopsy with rectal swab culture guided antimicrobials versus freehand transperineal biopsy

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 25, pages 283–287 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

Transrectal prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) holds a risk of prostate biopsy related sepsis. We discuss our step-wise strategies aiming to reduce this risk, including targeted antimicrobials and switching to a freehand transperineal approach (FHTPBx).

Subjects and methods

This longitudinal cohort study included three groups. Group A underwent TRUSBx with empirical augmented antimicrobial prophylaxis; Group B underwent TRUSBx with targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis, based on rectal-swab cultures/sensitivity; Group C underwent FHTPBx with empirical antimicrobial prophylaxis. Post biopsy sepsis, defined according to the surviving sepsis campaign and confirmed with blood or urinary cultures, were determined and rates between groups were analysed using fisher’s exact test.

Results

Of all 1501 patients, 23 developed post biopsy sepsis; Group A (12/609, 2.0%), B (9/403, 2.2%), C (2/489, 0.4%). Targeted antimicrobials did not reduce the risk of post biopsy sepsis following TRUSBx (A vs B, 2.0% vs 2.2%; p = 0.82). Patients with antimicrobial-resistant rectal flora had an increased post biopsy sepsis rate following TRUSBx despite targeted antimicrobials (9.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.003). Switching to FHTPBx reduced the risk of developing post biopsy sepsis (A vs C, 2% vs 0.4%, p = 0.03; B vs C, 2.2% vs 0.4%, p = 0.03).

Conclusions

Targeted antimicrobials based on rectal swab culture failed to reduce the overall risk of post biopsy sepsis, while FHTPBx nearly eliminated this risk. We recommend the use of transperineal prostate biopsies for all patients as the most effective method to reduce the risk of sepsis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Group sizes and antimicrobial prophylactic regimens.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel R, Miller K, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ. Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1110–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. B Batura D, Gopal Rao G. The national burden of infections after prostate biopsy in England and Wales: a wake-up call for better prevention. J Antimicrobial Chemother. 2012;68:247–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hadjipavlou M, Eragat M, Kenny C, Pantelidou M, Mulhem W, Wood C, et al. Effect of augmented antimicrobial prophylaxis and rectal swab culture–guided targeted prophylaxis on the risk of sepsis following transrectal prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6:95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Walker JT, Singla N, Roehrborn CG. Reducing infectious complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review. Rev Urol. 2021;18:73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wagenlehner F, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, Tandogdu Z, Çek M, Grabe M, et al. Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the global prevalence study of infections in urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol. 2013;63:521–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vyas L, Acher P, Kinsella J, Challacombe B, Chang R, Sturch P, et al. Indications, results and safety profile of transperineal sector biopsies (TPSB) of the prostate: a single centre experience of 634 cases. BJU Int. 2014;114:32–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kum F, Elhage O, Maliyil J, Wong K, Faure Walker N, Kulkarni M, et al. Initial outcomes of local anaesthetic freehand transperineal prostate biopsies in the outpatient setting. BJU Int. 2019;125:244–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dellinger R, Levy M, Rhodes A, Annane D, Gerlach H, Opal S, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:580–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Susceptibility Testing. British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2021. http://bsac.org.uk/susceptibility/.

  11. Kuru T, Wadhwa K, Chang R, Echeverria L, Roethke M, Polson A, et al. Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics. BJU Int. 2013;112:568–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grummet J, Gorin M, Popert R, O’Brien T, Lamb A, Hadaschik B, et al. “TREXIT 2020”: why the time to abandon transrectal prostate biopsy starts now. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020;23:62–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. EAU guidelines: prostate cancer. Uroweb. 2021. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#5.

  14. Sheehan S, Philpott-Howard J, Wang W, Nemade H, Thompson P. Prospective study assessing the presence of endotoxaemia in patients undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013;189:e474–5.

  15. Opal S. Endotoxins and other sepsis triggers. Contrib Nephrol. 2010;167:14–24.

  16. Tamhankar A, El‐Taji O, Vasdev N, Foley C, Popert R, Adshead J. The clinical and financial implications of a decade of prostate biopsies in the NHS: analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics data 2008–2019. BJU Int. 2020;126:133–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berry B, Parry M, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Cowling T, Aggarwal A, et al. Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population‐based study. BJU Int. 2020;126:97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Duplessis C, Bavaro M, Simons M, Marguet C, Santomauro M, Auge B, et al. Rectal cultures before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy reduce post-prostatic biopsy infection rates. Urology. 2012;79:556–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Taylor A, Zembower T, Nadler R, Scheetz M, Cashy J, Bowen D, et al. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications and cost of care. J Urol. 2012;187:1275–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jiang P, Liss M, Szabo R. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis does not always prevent sepsis after transrectal prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2018;200:361–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fluoroquinolone antimicrobials: new restrictions and precautions for use due to very rare reports of disabling and potentially long-lasting or irreversible side effects. GOV.UK. 2021. https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/fluoroquinolone-antimicrobials-new-restrictions-and-precautions-for-use-due-to-very-rare-reports-of-disabling-and-potentially-long-lasting-or-irreversible-side-effects.

  22. Pepe P, Aragona F. Morbidity after transperineal prostate biopsy in 3000 patients undergoing 12 vs 18 vs more than 24 needle cores. Urology. 2013;81:1142–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Singer M, Deutschman C, Seymour C, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, London, UK

    Thomas Hedley Newman, Luke Stroman, Marios Hadjipavlou, Arman Haque, Jonah Rusere, Kimberley Chan, Demetris Ioannides, Antonina Di Benedetto, Tibor Pinczes & Mohamed Y. Hammadeh

  2. Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS trust, Guy’s Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, UK

    Rick Popert

Authors
  1. Thomas Hedley Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luke Stroman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marios Hadjipavlou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arman Haque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jonah Rusere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kimberley Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Demetris Ioannides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Antonina Di Benedetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tibor Pinczes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Rick Popert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mohamed Y. Hammadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

THN contributed to all aspects of the study, most notably data collection, data analysis and writing the manuscript. LS contributed to all aspects of the study and helped write the manuscript. MH carried out the original study and supported all aspect of this study. AH performed data collection and reviewed the manuscript. JR trained the department to perform prostate biopsies and reviewed the manuscript. KC performed data collection and reviewed the manuscript. DI performed data collection and reviewed the manuscript. ADB supported training, performed biopsies, supported data collection, and reviewed the manuscript. TP performed biopsies, supported data collection, and reviewed the manuscript. RP was the second supervisor, trained clinicians to perform biopsies and reviewed the manuscript. MYH was the principal supervisor and contributed to all aspects of the study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Hedley Newman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

RP: The NHS Innovation Accelerator Bursary; honoraria BXT Accelyon for teaching and training; professional services agreement HCA International; honoraria for Johanssen for teaching. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

The study was formally approved by the local clinical audit committee with consultation from local microbiology committee.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Newman, T.H., Stroman, L., Hadjipavlou, M. et al. EXIT from TRansrectal prostate biopsies (TREXIT): sepsis rates of transrectal biopsy with rectal swab culture guided antimicrobials versus freehand transperineal biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 25, 283–287 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00438-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00438-w

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links