Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.

IF 8.3 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY European urology oncology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.009
Fabio Zattoni, Pawel Rajwa, Marcin Miszczyk, Tamás Fazekas, Filippo Carletti, Salvatore Carrozza, Francesca Sattin, Giuseppe Reitano, Simone Botti, Akihiro Matsukawa, Fabrizio Dal Moro, R Jeffrey Karnes, Alberto Briganti, Giacomo Novara, Shahrokh F Shariat, Guillaume Ploussard, Giorgio Gandaglia
{"title":"Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.","authors":"Fabio Zattoni, Pawel Rajwa, Marcin Miszczyk, Tamás Fazekas, Filippo Carletti, Salvatore Carrozza, Francesca Sattin, Giuseppe Reitano, Simone Botti, Akihiro Matsukawa, Fabrizio Dal Moro, R Jeffrey Karnes, Alberto Briganti, Giacomo Novara, Shahrokh F Shariat, Guillaume Ploussard, Giorgio Gandaglia","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>The benefits of the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and safety of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted transperineal (TP) prostate biopsy (TP-Tbx) versus transrectal (TR) approaches are still a matter of debate. This review aims to compare the efficacy and safety of TP-Tbx and MRI-targeted TR biopsy (TR-Tbx).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify records of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TP-Tbx and TR-Tbx published until May 2024. The primary outcomes included detection rates of csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥2) and rates of complications.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Three RCTs (PREVENT, ProBE-PC, and PERFECT) met the inclusion criteria. The TR technique was commonly administered with antibiotic prophylaxis to mitigate infection risks or after a rectal swab. No difference was found between TP-Tbx and TR-Tbx in terms of either csPCa (odds ratio [OR] 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7-1.1) or ISUP 1 prostate cancer (PCa; OR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.8-1.4) detection. Postprocedural infection (OR 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.8), sepsis (OR 0.6, 95% CI: 0.1-4.5), and urinary retention rates (OR 0.5, 95% CI: 0.1-1.6) were similar. Pain during the TP approach was slightly higher than during the TR approach, but after 7 d of follow-up, the differences between the two approaches were minimal. Variations in biopsy numbers per patient, patient selection, use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, needle sizes, TP techniques, and pain scores (reported in only one RCT), along with the multicenter nature of RCTs, limit the study.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>TP-Tbx and TR-Tbx show similar results in detecting PCa, with comparable rates of infections, urinary retention, and effectiveness in managing biopsy-associated pain. TP-Tbx can safely omit antibiotics without increasing infection risk, unlike TR-Tbx. The tendency to exclude from practice TR-Tbx with prophylactic antibiotics due to infection concerns could be moderated; however, the directionality of some key outcomes, as infections and sepsis, favor the TP approach despite a lack of statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Patient summary: </strong>There were no significant differences in the prostate biopsy approaches (transperineal [TP] vs transrectal [TR]) for prostate cancer detection and complications. However, the MRI-targeted TP prostate biopsy approach may be advantageous as it can be performed safely without antibiotics, potentially reducing antibiotic resistance.</p>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.009","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: The benefits of the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and safety of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted transperineal (TP) prostate biopsy (TP-Tbx) versus transrectal (TR) approaches are still a matter of debate. This review aims to compare the efficacy and safety of TP-Tbx and MRI-targeted TR biopsy (TR-Tbx).

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify records of prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TP-Tbx and TR-Tbx published until May 2024. The primary outcomes included detection rates of csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥2) and rates of complications.

Key findings and limitations: Three RCTs (PREVENT, ProBE-PC, and PERFECT) met the inclusion criteria. The TR technique was commonly administered with antibiotic prophylaxis to mitigate infection risks or after a rectal swab. No difference was found between TP-Tbx and TR-Tbx in terms of either csPCa (odds ratio [OR] 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7-1.1) or ISUP 1 prostate cancer (PCa; OR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.8-1.4) detection. Postprocedural infection (OR 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.8), sepsis (OR 0.6, 95% CI: 0.1-4.5), and urinary retention rates (OR 0.5, 95% CI: 0.1-1.6) were similar. Pain during the TP approach was slightly higher than during the TR approach, but after 7 d of follow-up, the differences between the two approaches were minimal. Variations in biopsy numbers per patient, patient selection, use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, needle sizes, TP techniques, and pain scores (reported in only one RCT), along with the multicenter nature of RCTs, limit the study.

Conclusions and clinical implications: TP-Tbx and TR-Tbx show similar results in detecting PCa, with comparable rates of infections, urinary retention, and effectiveness in managing biopsy-associated pain. TP-Tbx can safely omit antibiotics without increasing infection risk, unlike TR-Tbx. The tendency to exclude from practice TR-Tbx with prophylactic antibiotics due to infection concerns could be moderated; however, the directionality of some key outcomes, as infections and sepsis, favor the TP approach despite a lack of statistical significance.

Patient summary: There were no significant differences in the prostate biopsy approaches (transperineal [TP] vs transrectal [TR]) for prostate cancer detection and complications. However, the MRI-targeted TP prostate biopsy approach may be advantageous as it can be performed safely without antibiotics, potentially reducing antibiotic resistance.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经会阴与经直肠磁共振成像靶向前列腺活检:前瞻性研究的系统回顾和 Meta 分析。
背景和目的:磁共振成像(MRI)靶向经会阴(TP)前列腺活检(TP-Tbx)与经直肠(TR)方法相比,在检测具有临床意义的前列腺癌(csPCa)方面的优势和安全性仍存在争议。本综述旨在比较TP-Tbx和MRI靶向TR活检(TR-Tbx)的有效性和安全性:方法:在PubMed/Medline、Scopus和Web of Science中进行了系统性文献检索,以确定2024年5月之前发表的比较TP-Tbx和TR-Tbx的前瞻性随机对照试验(RCT)记录。主要结果包括 csPCa 的检出率(国际泌尿病理学会 [ISUP] ≥2)和并发症发生率:三项 RCT(PREVENT、ProBE-PC 和 PERFECT)符合纳入标准。TR技术通常与抗生素预防性治疗一起使用,以降低感染风险,或在直肠拭子之后使用。TP-Tbx和TR-Tbx在csPCa(几率比[OR]0.9,95% 置信区间[CI]:0.7-1.1)或ISUP 1前列腺癌(PCa;OR 1.1,95% CI:0.8-1.4)检出率方面均无差异。术后感染(OR 0.8,95% CI:0.4-1.8)、败血症(OR 0.6,95% CI:0.1-4.5)和尿潴留率(OR 0.5,95% CI:0.1-1.6)相似。TP方法的疼痛感略高于TR方法,但随访7天后,两种方法之间的差异微乎其微。每位患者的活检数量、患者选择、5-α还原酶抑制剂的使用、针头大小、TP技术和疼痛评分(仅有一项RCT报告)等方面的差异,以及RCT的多中心性质限制了这项研究:结论:TP-Tbx和TR-Tbx在检测PCa方面显示出相似的结果,感染率、尿潴留率和处理活检相关疼痛的有效性也相当。与TR-Tbx不同的是,TP-Tbx可以安全地省略抗生素而不增加感染风险。患者总结:前列腺活检方法(经会阴[TP] 与经直肠[TR])在前列腺癌检测和并发症方面没有显著差异。不过,MRI靶向TP前列腺活检方法可能更具优势,因为它可以在不使用抗生素的情况下安全进行,从而有可能减少抗生素耐药性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
128
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: Journal Name: European Urology Oncology Affiliation: Official Journal of the European Association of Urology Focus: First official publication of the EAU fully devoted to the study of genitourinary malignancies Aims to deliver high-quality research Content: Includes original articles, opinion piece editorials, and invited reviews Covers clinical, basic, and translational research Publication Frequency: Six times a year in electronic format
期刊最新文献
Reducing Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer Patients: Revisiting the European Association of Urology Pretreatment Risk Group Classification Using Long-term Follow-up Data from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Rotterdam. Anatomic Factors Associated with Complications After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Repeat Prostate Cancer Screening using Blood-based Risk Prediction or Prostate-specific Antigen in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Biopsies : A Secondary Analysis of the STHLM3-MRI Randomized Clinical Trial. A Systematic Review of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Deep Learning Models for the Automatic Detection, Localization, and Characterization of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Colibactin Exerts Androgen-dependent and -independent Effects on Prostate Cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1