Skip to main content
Download PDF

Efficacy of fosfomycin compared to second generation cephalosporin flumarin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a single center retrospective study

BMC Urology volume 23, Article number: 211 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Fluoroquinolone has been the historic choice of antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. However, increased fluoroquinolone resistance and recent restrictions of its use for antimicrobial prophylaxis has led to the emergence of alternative agents for antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS guided prostate biopsy including fosfomycin and cephalosporins. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of fosfomycin and a second-generation cephalosporin flumarin as alternative antimicrobials for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in terms of the incidence of infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between November 2009 to January 2023 was undertaken. Comparison of baseline characteristics and the incidence of infectious complications was done between those who received fosfomycin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy and those who received flumarin. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.

Results

Of 2,900 patients identified as eligible candidates for analysis, 333 (11.5%) received fosfomycin and 2,567 (88.5%) received flumarin. The overall rate of infectious complications was approximately 3% lower in patients who received fosfomycin, although such difference did not reach statistical significance (5.7% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.074). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that history of operation done under general anaesthesia within six months of the biopsy (odds ratio [OR]: 2.216; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.042–4.713; p = 0.039) and history of prior antimicrobial use within six months (OR: 1.457; 95% CI: 1.049–2.024; p = 0.025) were significant risk factors for infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.

Conclusion

Fosfomycin was comparable to second-generation cephalosporin flumarin in preventing infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Coupled with its properties such as ease of administration, low adverse effects, low resistance rate, and low collateral damage, fosfomycin might be an attractive alternative antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.

Peer Review reports

Background

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy has been the gold standard for diagnosing prostate cancer for decades. Although the recent European Association of Urology (EAU) guideline recommends transperineal prostate biopsy on grounds of decreased infectious complications compared to the transrectal method [1], several practical issues hinder drastic conversion to the transperineal method [2]. Until such hurdles are overcome, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy is likely to remain the main modality for diagnosing prostate cancer for some time.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis is mandatory prior to TRUS-guided prostate biopsy to prevent infectious complications [3]. Fluoroquinolones have been the historic choice for antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. However, infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy have been on the rise since the previous decade. One of the main suspected reasons is increase in fluoroquinolones resistance [4]. Coupled with the suspension of fluoroquinolones for use for antimicrobial prophylaxis by the European Commission in 2019 [5], alternative strategies for antimicrobial prophylaxis have been recommended in regions where fluoroquinolones use are restricted [1] or where resistance rate for fluoroquinolones is high [6]. Although fluoroquinolones are not restricted in South Korea, South Korea has been a region with high fluoroquinolone resistance [7,8,9]. As such, our institution has been using second-generation cephalosporin flumarin for antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy since 2009 until 2019.

Another recently recommended antimicrobial prophylactic agent for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy is Fosfomycin [10]. Using fosfomycin as an antimicrobial prophylaxis agent for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy has several advantages such as high activity against multidrug resistant strains, low resistance rate, good safety profile, and good penetration into prostate [11]. We have been using it as our main antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy since 2019. Multiple studies have reported that it is efficacious in terms of antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy [12, 13], although opposing views also exist [14]. Most studies have compared fosfomycin with fluoroquinolones. As such, the aim of the present study was to determine the efficacy of fosfomycin compared with a second-generation cephalosporin flumarin in terms of incidence of infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.

Methods

Study population and design

A retrospective chart review was undertaken for all patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between November 2009 and January 2023. Patients who received either fosfomycin or flumarin as an antimicrobial prophylaxis agent before TRUS-guided prostate biopsy with at least one month of follow-up period were included for analysis. The following patients were excluded from this study: patients who received antimicrobial prophylaxis other than fosfomycin or flumarin, patients with less than one month of follow-up period after the procedure, patients who simultaneously underwent other procedures or surgeries, and patients who were admitted in other departments during the procedure. The following information were obtained: age (years), history of diabetes mellitus (DM), health care risk, history of operation done under general anaesthesia within six months of TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, history of treatment for urinary tract infection (UTI) within six months, history of prior prostate biopsy, history of prior antimicrobial use within six months, prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, prostate size, number of biopsy cores, cancer detection rate, and infectious complications rate. Health care risk was defined as history of admission due to any cause within 90 days, history of urethral catheterization within 30 days, history of invasive urologic procedures within 30 days, and history of dialysis and chemotherapy at the time of the procedure. Infectious complications were defined as one or more of the following symptoms after the biopsy procedure that led clinician to prescribe unplanned antimicrobials: frequency, urgency, dysuria, suprapubic discomfort, foul-smelling urine, scrotal pain, and fever following biopsy [15]. The need for hospitalization due to UTI was based on the assessment of the practicing clinician. The current study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of St. Vincent’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea (VC20RESI0046).

Procedure

We have previously described our procedure for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy [16]. Briefly, a standard 12-core TRUS-guided prostate biopsy was performed for patients in a left lateral position. All patients underwent a rectal povidone-iodine preparation before the procedure. Enema was not done. For antimicrobial prophylaxis, flumarin was used from November 2009 to November 2019 and fosfomycin was used from December 2019 to January 2023. Flumarin 1 g was administered intravenously within one hour prior to the procedure. Fosfomycin 3 g was administered orally the night before the procedure.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were done using SPSS (IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Descriptive statistics were used to describe categorical variables. Mean and standard deviation were used to describe continuous variables. Categorical variables were compared with either chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were compared with Mann-Whitney U test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors of infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Statistical significance was considered when p-value was less than 0.05.

Results

Comparison of baseline characteristics and infectious complications between patients who received fosfomycin and those who received flumarin for antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS guided prostate biopsy are described in Table 1. Of 2,970 patients who underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy during the study period, 2,900 patients were identified as eligible candidates for analysis. Of these patients, 333 (11.5%) received fosfomycin as an antimicrobial prophylaxis agent for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy and 2,567 (88.5%) received flumarin. There was no statistical difference in age, DM, health care risk, history of operation within six months, history of UTI within six months, or prior antimicrobial use within six months between the two groups. History of prior prostate biopsy was lower in patients who received fosfomycin (5.1% vs. 13.4%, p = 0.000). The overall rate of infectious complications was approximately 3% lower in patients who received fosfomycin, although such difference did not reach statistical significance (5.7% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.074). When patients with infectious complications were stratified into those who required hospitalization and those who did not, the rate of infectious complications decreased substantially in both groups to be only 0.9% in patients who received fosfomycin and 0.3% in patients who received flumarin. Although the rate of hospitalization due to infectious complications was three times higher in patients who received fosfomycin, the difference between the two groups did not reach statistical significance as well (p = 0.073). Information of patients with positive culture and their susceptibility patterns are provided in Supplementary Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison of baseline characteristics and infectious complications between patients who received fosfomycin and those who received flumarin for antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS guided prostate biopsy
Full size table

Multivariate logistic regression analysis described in Table 2 showed that history of operation done under general anaesthesia within six months of TRUS-guided prostate biopsy (odds ratio [OR]: 2.216; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.042–4.713; p = 0.039) and history of prior antimicrobial use within six months (OR: 1.457; 95% CI: 1.049–2.024; p = 0.025) were identified as significant risk factors for infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. The type of antimicrobial agents (fosfomycin or flumarin) was found to be unrelated to the occurrence of infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy.

Table 2 Multivariate logistic regression to identify risk factors of infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy
Full size table

Discussion

The current study aimed to identify the efficacy of fosfomycin compared with flumarin in terms of the incidence of infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. As most clinical trials studying the efficacy of fosfomycin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy compared fosfomycin with fluoroquinolones, we conducted this study to compare fosfomycin with a second-generation cephalosporin. To the best of our knowledge, this has not been done previously. Both were not commonly used as antimicrobial prophylaxis agents in TRUS-guided prostate biopsy as fluoroquinolones have been the main recommended choice of antimicrobial prophylaxis agents for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy for decades. However, the increase in infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy mainly due to increased fluoroquinolone resistance [4] and restricted use of fluoroquinolones by the European Commission in 2019 [5] has prompted the guidelines to recommend alternative strategies for antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. This includes targeted prophylaxis based on rectal swab, augmented prophylaxis, and alternative antibiotics like fosfomycin and cephalosporins, both of which were used in our series [1].

One of the difficulties when selecting an optimal agent for antimicrobial prophylaxis is the geographical variation of antimicrobial resistance. Knowledge of local antimicrobial resistance pattern is therefore paramount in this selection process [17, 18]. Our hospital had been using flumarin as our main antimicrobial prophylaxis agent for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy since 2009 until 2019 when we switched to fosfomycin. Although there is no restriction in South Korea with the use of fluoroquinolones like the one implemented in Europe in 2019, reported fluoroquinolone resistance rate has been high. Antimicrobial susceptibility of E. coli to ciprofloxacin in South Korea was 84.8% in a study from 2003 [19]. This figure had decreased progressively over time; the susceptibility rate was 76.6% in a study from 2008 [7], 74.6% in a study from 2011 [8], and 69.8% in a study from 2013 [9]. Using fluoroquinolones, as recommended by the guidelines at the time, might have caused detrimental effects on patients undergoing TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. One report has suggested that if local resistance of E. coli to fluoroquinolones is greater than 20%, alternative antibiotics should be considered [6]. Resistance rates to cephalosporins were all under 20% in studies mentioned above. As such, we have been using second-generation cephalosporin flumarin as our main antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided biopsy for more than 10 years.

The addition of fosfomycin as one of the recommended alternative antimicrobials for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in guidelines took place in relatively recent years, although the drug itself was first developed in 1969. Its favorable properties such as high activities against multidrug resistant strains, low resistance rate, good safety profile, good penetration into prostate, and so on [11] have facilitated its addition, especially in the era of increased fluoroquinolone resistance and restrictions of fluoroquinolone use. Another important advantage is that there is no cross-resistance or parallel resistance against fosfomycin, meaning that fosfomycin exerts less collateral damage on the microbiome than other broad-spectrum antimicrobials such as fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins [13, 20]. These factors were the main reasons for switching from second-generation cephalosporin flumarin to fosfomycin as our main antimicrobial prophylaxis agent for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in our hospital.

We found that infectious complications (total as well as those requiring hospitalization) were comparable between the two groups and that prior history of operation done under general anaesthesia and antibiotics use within six months were significant factors for infectious complications, both of which confirms findings from previous studies that showed the relationthiop between prior antibiotics exposure and risk of antibiotic resistance-related UTI [21]. The type of antimicrobial agent (fosfomycin or flumarin) was found to be unrelated to infectious complications. Considering the advantages of fosfomycin such as ease of administration, low adverse effects, low resistance rate, and low collateral damage, fosfomycin might be a attractiven alternative antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. We feel that our finding may provide additional insight into antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy as the use of fluoroquinolone is expected to decrease further in the future.

The efficacy of fosfomycin in preventing infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsies has been studied in several randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analysis with some conflicting results. Sen et al. in their RCT have compared single dose of 3 g fosfomycin with 500 mg of oral ciprofloxacin and concluded that fosfomycin is a strong alternative antibiotic prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy [13]. Lista et al. in their RCT have also compared two doses of 3 g fosfomycin with 10 doses of 500 mg oral ciprofloxacin and concluded that fosfomycin is as effective as ciprofloxacin [12]. A meta-analysis of three RCTs [3] and two other meta-analysis that included non-RCTs [20, 22] all significantly favored fosfomycin over quinolone-based prophylaxis. On the other hand, in a large Canadian cohort study involving 9,391 subjects, it was found that fosfomycin was not an effective alternative to ciprofloxacin [14]. The reason for such conflicting results might be due to limitations with clinical trials studying the efficacy of fosfomycin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy including variation in dosage (single dose versus double dose), variation in drug infusion time (night before versus just before procedure), heterogenous biopsy technique and follow-up protocol, variation in definition of infectious complications, and variation of fluoroquinolone resistance rate of study population [23]. Still, the overall result seems to be positive for using fosfomycin, although standardization of study parameters is needed to have a more robust conclusion.

The recent EAU guideline recommends performing prostate biopsy with a transperineal approach over a transrectal approach on two grounds: (1) a higher sensitivity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with the transperineal approach [24,25,26], and (2) lower incidence of infectious complications, sepsis, and readmission due to sepsis [17, 27,28,29]. On the other hand, the American Urological Association (AUA) guideline does not recommend a particular approach due to insufficient evidence [30]. With the advent of MRI guided prostate biopsy and increasing evidence of improved detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer and lower infectious complications associated with transperineal prostate biopsy the transperineal approach is likely to become the main modality of prostate biopsy in the future. However, several practical issues hinder drastic conversion from transrectal to transperineal prostate biopsy. The transperineal approach requires additional resources in terms of equipment, operating space, and personnel which all can increase the cost [20]. General anaesthesia is usually needed with the transperineal approach [2], although feasibility of local anaesthesia has been reported [31, 32]. In addition, although the risk of infectious complications is lower with the transperineal approach than with the transrectal approach, acute urinary retention is higher with the transperineal approach, leading to similar risk of hospitalization [17]. For these reasons, switching to the transperineal approach from the already familiar, office based TRUS-guided prostate biopsy might face considerable resistance from a large proportion of urologists worldwide. Thus, the transrectal approach is likely to remain the main modality for prostate cancer diagnosis for some time.

The current study has several limitations that should be mentioned. First, this was a retrospective study prone to selection bias. Second, we did not report fosfomycin resistance, as it was not included in our routine antimicrobial susceptibility tests. However, fosfomycin resistance rate remains very low with reported susceptibility rate to E. coli of over 99% [33, 34]. Other studies have also omitted reporting fosfomycin resistance rate for similar reason [14, 35, 36]. Lastly, our practice of administering a single dose of 3 g fosfomycin the night before the procedure differs from others who recommend the use of 3 g fosfomycin three hours before the procedure plus 3 g 24 h after the procedure [11]. However, some studies have reported that single dose regimen may be adequate [13, 37]. As previously mentioned, standardization of these parameters is necessary in future studies.

Conclusions

In conclusion, in the current study, fosfomycin was found to be comparable to second-generation cephalosporin flumarin in preventing infectious complications after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Coupled with its properties such as ease of administration, low adverse effects, low resistance rate, and low collateral damage, fosfomycin might be an attractive alternative antimicrobial prophylaxis for TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Future studies in this respect should standardize study parameters.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

TRUS:

transrectal ultrasound

EAU:

European Association of Urology

DM:

diabetes mellitus

UTI:

urinary tract infection

PSA:

prostate specific antigen

RCT:

randomized controlled trial

References

  1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fanti S, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate Cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, Holmes M, Grummet J, Naber K, Wagenlehner FME. Prostate biopsy-related Infection: a systematic review of risk factors, Prevention Strategies, and management approaches. Urology. 2017;104:11–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pilatz A, Dimitropoulos K, Veeratterapillay R, Yuan Y, Omar MI, MacLennan S, Cai T, Bruyere F, Bartoletti R, Koves B, et al. Antibiotic Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following prostate biopsy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Urol. 2020;204(2):224–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Liss MA, Johnson JR, Porter SB, Johnston B, Clabots C, Gillis K, Nseyo U, Holden M, Sakamoto K, Fierer J. Clinical and microbiological determinants of Infection after transrectal prostate biopsy. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(7):979–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. European Medicines Agency. Disabling and potentially permanent side effects lead to suspension or restrictions of quinolone and fluoroquinolone antibiotics. 2018 EMA/175398/2019. [Access date June 2023]. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/referral/quinolone-fluoroquinolone-article-31-referral-disabling-potentially-permanent-side-effects-lead_en.pdf. In.

  6. Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, Meng MV, Raman JD, Spears V, Stroup SP. An update of the American Urological Association White Paper on the Prevention and Treatment of the more common Complications related to prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2017;198(2):329–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim ME, Ha US, Cho YH. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among uropathogens causing acute uncomplicated cystitis in female outpatients in South Korea: a multicentre study in 2006. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;31(Suppl 1):15–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee SJ, Lee DS, Choe HS, Shim BS, Kim CS, Kim ME, Cho YH. Antimicrobial resistance in community-acquired urinary tract Infections: results from the Korean Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System. J Infect Chemother. 2011;17(3):440–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee DS, Choe HS, Lee SJ, Bae WJ, Cho HJ, Yoon BI, Cho YH, Han CH, Jang H, Park SB, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern and epidemiology of female urinary tract Infections in South Korea, 2010–2011. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57(11):5384–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pilatz A, Veeratterapillay R, Dimitropoulos K, Omar MI, Pradere B, Yuan Y, Cai T, Mezei T, Devlies W, Bruyere F, et al. European Association of Urology Position Paper on the Prevention of Infectious Complications following prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2021;79(1):11–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bjerklund Johansen TE, Kulchavenya E, Lentz GM, Livermore DM, Nickel JC, Zhanel G, Bonkat G. Fosfomycin Trometamol for the Prevention of Infectious Complications after prostate biopsy: a Consensus Statement by an International Multidisciplinary Group. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8(5):1483–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lista F, Redondo C, Meilan E, Garcia-Tello A, Ramon de Fata F, Angulo JC. Efficacy and safety of fosfomycin-trometamol in the prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Prospective randomized comparison with ciprofloxacin. Actas Urol Esp. 2014;38(6):391–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sen V, Aydogdu O, Bozkurt IH, Yonguc T, Sen P, Polat S, Degirmenci T, Bolat D. The use of prophylactic single-dose fosfomycin in patients who undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized, and controlled clinical study. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(11–12):E863–867.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Carignan A, Sabbagh R, Masse V, Gagnon N, Montpetit LP, Smith MA, Raymond M, Allard C, Bergeron C, Pepin J. Effectiveness of fosfomycin tromethamine prophylaxis in preventing Infection following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy: results from a large Canadian cohort. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2019;17:112–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Foxman B. Urinary tract Infection syndromes: occurrence, recurrence, bacteriology, risk factors, and Disease burden. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2014;28(1):1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim HY, Choi YH, Lee SJ. Effect of Sedation Anesthesia with Intravenous Propofol on Transrectal Ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy outcomes. J Korean Med Sci. 2022;37(15):e115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bennett HY, Roberts MJ, Doi SA, Gardiner RA. The global burden of major infectious Complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect. 2016;144(8):1784–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zowawi HM, Harris PN, Roberts MJ, Tambyah PA, Schembri MA, Pezzani MD, Williamson DA, Paterson DL. The emerging threat of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in urology. Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12(10):570–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee SJ, Lee SD, Cho IR, Sim BS, Lee JG, Kim CS, Kim ME, Cho YH, Woo YN. Antimicrobial susceptibility of uropathogens causing acute uncomplicated cystitis in female outpatients in South Korea: a multicentre study in 2002. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2004;24(Suppl 1):61–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Roberts MJ, Scott S, Harris PN, Naber K, Wagenlehner FME, Doi SAR. Comparison of fosfomycin against fluoroquinolones for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis: an individual patient-data meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36(3):323–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hillier S, Roberts Z, Dunstan F, Butler C, Howard A, Palmer S. Prior antibiotics and risk of antibiotic-resistant community-acquired urinary tract Infection: a case-control study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60(1):92–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Noreikaite J, Jones P, Fitzpatrick J, Amitharaj R, Pietropaolo A, Vasdev N, Chadwick D, Somani BK, Rai BP. Fosfomycin vs. quinolone-based antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21(2):153–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Delory T, Goujon A, Masson-Lecomte A, Arias P, Laurancon-Fretar A, Bercot B, Mongiat-Artus P, Molina JM, Lafaurie M. Fosfomycin-Trometamol (FT) or fluoroquinolone (FQ) as single-dose prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PB): a prospective cohort study. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;102:269–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tu X, Liu Z, Chang T, Qiu S, Xu H, Bao Y, Yang L, Wei Q. Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted Biopsy May perform Better Than Transrectal Route in the detection of clinically significant Prostate Cancer: systematic review and Meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17(5):e860–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Transperineal Versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS Fusion targeted Biopsy: detection rate of clinically significant Prostate Cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15(1):e33–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zattoni F, Marra G, Kasivisvanathan V, Grummet J, Nandurkar R, Ploussard G, Olivier J, Chiu PK, Valerio M, Gontero P, et al. The detection of Prostate Cancer with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies is Superior with the Transperineal vs the Transrectal Approach. A European Association of Urology-Young Academic urologists Prostate Cancer Working Group Multi-institutional Study. J Urol. 2022;208(4):830–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Berry B, Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Cowling TE, Aggarwal A, Cathcart P, Payne H, van der Meulen J, Clarke N. Comparison of Complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study. BJU Int. 2020;126(1):97–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pradere B, Veeratterapillay R, Dimitropoulos K, Yuan Y, Omar MI, MacLennan S, Cai T, Bruyere F, Bartoletti R, Koves B, et al. Nonantibiotic strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following prostate biopsy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Urol. 2021;205(3):653–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pepe P, Pennisi M. Morbidity following transperineal prostate biopsy: our experience in 8.500 men. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022;94(2):155–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wei JT, Barocas D, Carlsson S, Coakley F, Eggener S, Etzioni R, Fine SW, Han M, Kim SK, Kirkby E, et al. Early detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: considerations for a prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2023;210(1):54–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kum F, Elhage O, Maliyil J, Wong K, Faure Walker N, Kulkarni M, Namdarian B, Challacombe B, Cathcart P, Popert R. Initial outcomes of local anaesthetic freehand transperineal prostate biopsies in the outpatient setting. BJU Int. 2020;125(2):244–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Meyer AR, Joice GA, Schwen ZR, Partin AW, Allaf ME, Gorin MA. Initial experience performing In-office ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy under local Anesthesia using the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System. Urology. 2018;115:8–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kandil H, Cramp E, Vaghela T. Trends in Antibiotic Resistance in Urologic Practice. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2(4):363–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Karlowsky JA, Denisuik AJ, Lagace-Wiens PR, Adam HJ, Baxter MR, Hoban DJ, Zhanel GG. In Vitro activity of fosfomycin against Escherichia coli isolated from patients with urinary tract Infections in Canada as part of the CANWARD surveillance study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(2):1252–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Morin A, Bergevin M, Rivest N, Lapointe SP. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy: compared efficacy of ciprofloxacin vs. the ciprofloxacin/fosfomycin tromethamine combination. Can Urol Assoc J. 2020;14(8):267–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Yu SH, Jung SI, Ryu JW, Kim MS, Chung HS, Hwang EC, Kwon DD. Comparison of amikacin with fosfomycin as an add-on to ciprofloxacin for antibiotic prophylaxis in transrectal prostate biopsy: a single-center retrospective study. Investig Clin Urol. 2022;63(6):663–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ongun S, Aslan G, Avkan-Oguz V. The effectiveness of single-dose fosfomycin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Urol Int. 2012;89(4):439–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The authors declare that they received no funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, College of Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, 93, Jungbu-daero, Paldal-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul, 16247, Republic of Korea

    Hee Youn Kim, Daehyun Lim, Young Hyo Choi, Je Mo Yoo, Dong Sup Lee & Seung-Ju Lee

Authors
  1. Hee Youn Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daehyun Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Young Hyo Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Je Mo Yoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dong Sup Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Seung-Ju Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HYK contributed to the design, analysis, interpretation of data and drafted the work. DHL contributed to acquisition of data. YHC contributed to acquisition of data and revision. JMY contributed to acquisition of data. DSL contributed to design, acquisition and interpretation of data and revision. SJL contributed to design, acquisition and interpretation of data and revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seung-Ju Lee.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for this study from the Institutional Review Board of St. Vincent’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea (VC20RESI0046). We obtained a waiver of the requirement for informed consent for this retrospective study from the Institutional Review Board of St. Vincent’s Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea (VC20RESI0046). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1: List of patients with positive culture

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, H.Y., Lim, D., Choi, Y.H. et al. Efficacy of fosfomycin compared to second generation cephalosporin flumarin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a single center retrospective study. BMC Urol 23, 211 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-023-01391-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-023-01391-7

Keywords

BMC Urology

ISSN: 1471-2490

Contact us