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.
© 2022 British Small Animal Veterinary Association.