Ashot Gevorkyan, Ilya Lumpov, Armen Avakyan


. Prostate cancer - is a malignant neoplasm arising from prostatic epithelium. [1] It is well known, that prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men population. Most patients, who underwent a biopsy of prostate, have expressed varying degrees of benign prostatic hyperplasia and, accordingly, symptoms, specific to the disease, including symptoms of the lower urinary (LUTS). [2], Uroflowmetry is a method widely used around the world to assess the degree of severity of infravesical obstruction [3].

The aim was to determine the degree of influence of transrectal multifocal biopsy of the prostate under ultrasound control on the degree of infravesical obstruction [4].

The study included patients with elevated serum PSA over 4 ng/ml with the volume (Vpr) of prostate from 20 cm³ to 90 cm³, volume of residual urine no more than 50 cm ³. Uroflowmetry was performed with the determination of the volume of residual urine at the primary treatment. At 21 day after transrectal multifocal prostate biopsy under Ultrasound control all patients underwent uroflowmetry. The age of patients ranged from 40 to 70 years. Patients were divided into 3 groups depending on the volume of the prostate gland. The first group consisted of 28 people where prostate volume ranged from 20 cm³ to 40 cm³, in the second group, consisted of 25 persons, prostate volume ranged from 41 cm³ to 60 cm³, and in the third group, consisted of 30 people, prostate volume ranged from 61 cm³ to 90 cm³. The following indicators of urofloumetry were determined as the following: voided volume, max flow rate, average flow, voiding time, flow time, time to max flow, and the volume of residual urine.

This study has demonstrated a high risk of complications in patients with prostate volume of more than 60 cm3 caused by infravesical obstruction after prostate biopsy.


uroflowmetry; urodynamics; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer

Full Text:



Rak predstatel'noj zhelezy (prostaty). Available at:

Lopatkina, N. A. (Ed.) (1982). Urology. Moscow, 512.

Danilov, V. V., Danilova, T. I. (2010). Outpatient noninvasive monitoring. Vladivostok, 17.

Matveev, V. B. (2009). Clinical urological Oncology.

Maso, E. B.; Maso, E. B., Krivoborodova, G. G. (Eds.) (2003). Overactive bladder. Moscow: Veche, 192.

Vishnevsky, E. L., Pushkar, D. Y., Laurent, O. B. et. al. (2011). Uroflowmetry. Moscow, 220.

Apolihin, O. I., Kakorina, E. P., Sivkov, A. V., Bešliev, D. A., Solntsev, T. V., Komarova, V. A. (2011). State of urologic diseases in the Russian Federation, according to official statistics. Urology, 3, 3–9.

Crawford, E. D. (2003). Epidemiology of prostate cancer. Urology, 62 (6), 3–12. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2003.10.013

Brawley, O. W. Prostate cancer screening: clinical applications and challenges. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 22 (4), 353–357. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2004.04.014

Siegel, R., Naishadham, D., Jemal, A. (2012). Cancer Statistics, 2012. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62 (1), 10–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.20138

Thompson, I., Thrasher, J. B., Aus, G. (2013). Guideline for the Management of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: 2013 Update. J. Urol., 177, 2106–2131.

Glaser, A. P., Novakovic, K., Helfand, B. T. (2012). The Impact of Prostate Biopsy on Urinary Symptoms, Erectile Function, and Anxiety. Current Urology Reports, 13 (6), 447–454. doi: 10.1007/s11934-012-0277-6

Loeb, S., Carter, H. B., Berndt, S. I., Ricker, W., Schaeffer, E. M. (2011). Complications after prostate biopsy: Data from SEER Medicare. The Journal of Urology, 186 (5), 1830–1834. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.06.057

Rosario, D. J., Lane, J. A., Metcalfe, C., Donovan, J. L., Doble, A., Goodwin, L. et. al. (2012). Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: Prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ, 344 (jan09 1), d7894– d7894. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7894

Loeb, S., Vellekoop, A., Ahmed, H. U., Catto, J., Emberton, M., Nam, R. et. al. (2013). Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. European Urology, 64 (6), 876–892. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049

Nam, R. K., Saskin, R., Lee, Y., Liu, Y., Law, C., Klotz, L. H. et. al. (2010). Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. The Journal of Urology, 183 (3), 963–969. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.043

Antsupova, V., Norgaard, N., Bisbjerg, R., Nygaard, J. J., Boel, J., Jarlov, J. O., Arpi, M. (2014). Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy-a new strategy. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 69 (12), 3372–3378. doi: 10.1093/jac/dku293

Adibi, M., Hornberger, B., Bhat, D., Raj, G., Roehrborn, C. G., Lotan, Y. (2013). Reduction in hospital admission rates due to post-prostate biopsy infections after augmenting standard antibiotic prophylaxis. The Journal of Urology, 189 (2), 535–540. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.194

Ankerst, D. P., Xia, J., Thompson, I. M., Hoefler, J., Newcomb, L. F., Brooks, J. D. et. al. (2015). Precision Medicine in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Development of the Canary-Early Detection Research Network Active Surveillance Biopsy Risk Calculator. European Urology, 68 (6), 1083–1088. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.023

Ukimura, O., Coleman, J. A., de la Taille, A. et. al. (2013). Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. European Urology, 63 (2), 214–230. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.033



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2016 Ашот Рафаэлович Геворкян, Ilya Lumpov, Armen Avakyan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2504-5679 (Online), ISSN 2504-5660 (Print)