European urology oncology · 2024
Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Zattoni Fabio, Rajwa Pawel, Miszczyk Marcin, Fazekas Tamás, Carletti Filippo, Carrozza Salvatore, Sattin Francesca, Reitano Giuseppe, Botti Simone, Matsukawa Akihiro, Dal Moro Fabrizio, Jeffrey Karnes R, Briganti Alberto, Novara Giacomo, Shariat Shahrokh F, Ploussard Guillaume, Gandaglia Giorgio
Аннотация
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.
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.