Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and Complication Rate of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Cancers Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.3390/cancers17061006
Salam Najjar, Cristian Mirvald, Alexandru Danilov, Apostolos Labanaris, Adrian George Vlaicu, Leonardo Giurca, Ioanel Sinescu, Cristian Surcel
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and Complication Rate of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.","authors":"Salam Najjar, Cristian Mirvald, Alexandru Danilov, Apostolos Labanaris, Adrian George Vlaicu, Leonardo Giurca, Ioanel Sinescu, Cristian Surcel","doi":"10.3390/cancers17061006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Transperineal prostate (TP) biopsy has emerged as a substantial alternative to the conventional transrectal (TR) approach for prostate sampling by its ability to sample specific areas of the prostate more effectively. The objective of this review is to conduct a comparative analysis of the current literature regarding diagnostic accuracy, complication rate and clinical outcome of transrectal vs. transperineal approaches in prostate biopsy-naïve patients and in repeated biopsy scenarios.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An extensive search of the literature in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted between September 2010 and September 2024. We utilized a robust and comprehensive retrieval strategy including phrasing the two approaches as follows: (perineal or transperineal) and (rectal or transrectal).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The transperineal and transrectal approaches show similar results in the detection of PCa in biopsy-naïve men, similar rates of infection, urinary retention and effectiveness managing biopsy-associated pain. However, in the rebiopsy scenario, the TP approach has demonstrated increased accuracy compared to the TR approach. This has significant implications in decision making and patient counselling.</p>","PeriodicalId":9681,"journal":{"name":"Cancers","volume":"17 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11940353/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancers","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17061006","RegionNum":2,"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

Introduction: Transperineal prostate (TP) biopsy has emerged as a substantial alternative to the conventional transrectal (TR) approach for prostate sampling by its ability to sample specific areas of the prostate more effectively. The objective of this review is to conduct a comparative analysis of the current literature regarding diagnostic accuracy, complication rate and clinical outcome of transrectal vs. transperineal approaches in prostate biopsy-naïve patients and in repeated biopsy scenarios.

Materials and methods: An extensive search of the literature in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted between September 2010 and September 2024. We utilized a robust and comprehensive retrieval strategy including phrasing the two approaches as follows: (perineal or transperineal) and (rectal or transrectal).

Conclusions: The transperineal and transrectal approaches show similar results in the detection of PCa in biopsy-naïve men, similar rates of infection, urinary retention and effectiveness managing biopsy-associated pain. However, in the rebiopsy scenario, the TP approach has demonstrated increased accuracy compared to the TR approach. This has significant implications in decision making and patient counselling.

Abstract Image

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
经会阴前列腺活检与经直肠前列腺活检诊断前列腺癌的准确率及并发症比较分析。
导读:经会阴前列腺活检(TP)已成为传统经直肠前列腺活检(TR)的重要替代方法,因为它能够更有效地对前列腺的特定区域进行采样。本综述的目的是对目前文献中关于前列腺biopsy-naïve患者和重复活检情况下经直肠入路与经会阴入路的诊断准确性、并发症发生率和临床结果进行比较分析。材料和方法:在2010年9月至2024年9月期间,在PubMed, Scopus和Web of Science中进行了广泛的文献检索。我们采用了一个强大而全面的检索策略,包括以下两种方法:(会阴或经会阴)和(直肠或经直肠)。结论:经会阴入路和经直肠入路在biopsy-naïve男性前列腺癌的检测、感染、尿潴留和处理活检相关疼痛的有效性方面显示出相似的结果。然而,在重新活检的情况下,与TR方法相比,TP方法的准确性更高。这对决策和患者咨询具有重要意义。
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
Cancers
Cancers Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
9.60%
发文量
5371
审稿时长
18.07 days
期刊介绍: Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal on oncology. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
期刊最新文献
RETRACTED: Wang et al. HSP70-eIF4G Interaction Promotes Protein Synthesis and Cell Proliferation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancers 2020, 12, 3410. RETRACTED: Sharad et al. Analysis of PMEPA1 Isoforms (a and b) as Selective Inhibitors of Androgen and TGF-β Signaling Reveals Distinct Biological and Prognostic Features in Prostate Cancer. Cancers 2019, 11, 1995. Liquid Biopsy and Molecular Biomarkers in Mucinous Appendiceal and Colorectal Tumors: Current Evidence and Unmet Challenges in Precision Oncology. Antigen Remodeling in Colorectal Cancer: How Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Enhance Immunotherapy Responsiveness. Circulating ERVFRD-1 and MFSD2A Are Associated with Immunotherapy Response in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.
×
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:604180095
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