Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Best way to detect prostate infection in dogs with prostate cancer
By Skorupski, K A et al.·Published in The Journal of small animal practice·2022·Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Prospective comparison of prostatic aspirate culture and cystocentesis urine culture for detection of bacterial infection in dogs with prostatic neoplasia.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
Ten dogs with prostatic cancer were evaluated for signs of urinary tract infection, such as difficulty urinating or frequent urination. The veterinarians collected urine samples using a method called cystocentesis and also took samples directly from the prostate. They found that while some dogs had positive cultures from either method, neither method was particularly effective at detecting infections. In the end, they concluded that using urine culture was just as good as taking samples from the prostate for identifying infections in dogs with prostatic cancer.
People also search for: dog prostatic cancer symptoms · urinary tract infection in dogs · prostatic aspirate culture vs urine culture
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether prostatic aspirate culture is a superior method to detect infection compared to culture of urine collected by cystocentesis in dogs with prostatic neoplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted and dogs with suspected or confirmed prostatic neoplasia were enrolled. Urinalysis was done and culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed on paired urine and prostatic aspirate samples collected at a single timepoint. RESULTS: Ten dogs with prostatic neoplasia were enrolled. All dogs had one or more clinical sign consistent with lower urinary tract disease. One dog (10%) had a positive urine culture, but negative prostatic aspirate culture, one dog (10%) had a positive prostatic aspirate culture, but negative urine culture, and one dog (10%) had both positive urine and prostatic aspirate cultures. Using prostatic aspirate culture as the reference standard, urine culture had a sensitivity for detecting infection of 87.5% (95% confidence interval 52.9 to 99.4) and specificity of 50% (92.6 to 97.4) in this population of dogs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Positive cultures were uncommon with both culture collection methods. Study results did not identify prostatic aspirate culture to be a more sensitive method of detecting prostatic infection than urine culture collected by cystocentesis in these dogs with prostatic neoplasia.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36167434/