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.
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。
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.