Biomedicines · 2026
Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy in the MRI-Targeted Era: A Contemporary Narrative Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Latcu Silviu, Petrica Flaviu Lucian, Novacescu Dorin, Costica Roland, Dema Vlad, Pasecinic Victor, Chiriac Ionel, Baghina Mihai, Caprariu Radu, Dragomir Radu, Bobora Razvan, Cumpanas Alin
Аннотация
Prostate biopsy is among the most frequently performed diagnostic procedures in men, and two shifts have reshaped it over the past decade: the incorporation of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with targeted sampling, and migration from the transrectal to the transperineal route. Because these changes are usually adopted together, the practical choice facing many units is between a contemporary transperineal MRI-targeted pathway and the historical transrectal systematic one. This narrative review weights cancer detection, procedure-related harms, and implementation approximately equally, drawing on evidence that isolates route from targeting wherever possible. Across randomized trials and meta-analyses, the two pathways achieve broadly comparable detection of clinically significant cancer (ISUP grade group ≥ 2), although the transperineal route samples anterior and apical tumors more effectively and the largest randomized comparison reported a modest transperineal advantage. The principal transperineal benefit is a marked reduction in infectious complications, enabling reduced antibiotic prophylaxis and improved stewardship; its main cost is greater procedural discomfort. We review mpMRI and PI-RADS with illustrative examples, fusion technique, cost-effectiveness, special populations, emerging adjuncts, and divergent guidelines, concluding that route and targeting decisions are best individualized, with infection risk and lesion location dominant.