Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 20:14:1127.
doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2020.1127. eCollection 2020.

Patients' experience with MRI-guided in-bore biopsy versus TRUS-guided biopsy in prostate cancer: a pilot study

Silvia Francesca Maria Pizzoli  1   2 , Giulia Marton  1   2 , Paola Pricolo  3 , Serena Oliveri  1   2 , Paul Summers  3 , Giuseppe Petralia  2   4 , Gabriella Pravettoni  1   2
Affiliations

Patients' experience with MRI-guided in-bore biopsy versus TRUS-guided biopsy in prostate cancer: a pilot study

Silvia Francesca Maria Pizzoli et al. Ecancermedicalscience. .

Abstract

Background: Ultrasound-guided magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion biopsy and in-bore MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB) have improved the diagnostic pathway in patients with suspected prostate cancer compared to the traditional random sampling of the prostate gland under transrectal ultrasound guidance (TRUS-Bx). The aim of our study was to assess the psychological experiences of patients undergoing MRGB and TRUS-Bx.

Method: Participants completed an ad hoc set of 11 items to be rated from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much) on visual analogue scales and one open question on the most worrisome aspect of the procedure. The set of items evaluated satisfaction with the information received and the possibility to ask questions to the staff; the tolerability of the irritation, duration and discomfort associated with the exam; their level of worry or calm before the exam; the perceived need to undergo the exam; their satisfaction with the exam and willingness to repeat it in the future; and acceptability of the exam.

Results: Between May 2018 and June 2019, 47 participants were enrolled on the day of their MRGB; 24 had previously undergone TRUS-Bx. The MRGB was rated with high positive scores on all 11 items. The lowest ratings regarded the duration of the exam (mean = 6.6) and feeling calm (mean = 6.6). Participants were significantly more satisfied with MRGB than TRUS-Bx, rating it as less painful and more comfortable, necessary and tolerable.

Conclusion: These preliminary results indicate that the MRGB is likely to be more tolerable and acceptable to patients than TRUS-Bx.

Keywords: in-bore MRI-guided biopsy; patients’ experience; prostate cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Summers indicates that he is part owner of QMRI Tech, a research services and medical physics support company, which is not associated with the present study.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Arnold M, Karim-Kos HE, Coebergh JW, et al. Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: analysis of the European Cancer Observatory. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(9):1164–1187. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.002. [Internet] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–629. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003. [Internet] [ https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283816304705] - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kimura T, Egawa S. Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer in Asian Countries vol 25 International Journal of Urology. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing; 2018. pp. 524–531. - PubMed
    1. Saika T, Miura N, Fukumoto T, et al. Role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2018;25(1):30–35. doi: 10.1111/iju.13441. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Green HJ, Wells DJN, Laakso L. Coping in men with prostate cancer and their partners: a quantitative and qualitative study. Eur J Cancer Care. 2011;20(2):237–247. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2010.01225.x. (Engl) - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources