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

Magnetic resonance imaging Prostate biopsy Prostate cancer Targeted biopsy Transperineal Transrectal

Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 21 05 2024
revised: 28 06 2024
accepted: 08 07 2024
medline: 3 8 2024
pubmed: 3 8 2024
entrez: 2 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

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). 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. 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. 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. 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE 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 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 UNASSIGNED
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 CONCLUSIONS
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 RESULTS
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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39095298
pii: S2588-9311(24)00182-2
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.009
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Fabio Zattoni (F)

Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy; Department of Medicine - DIMED, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. Electronic address: fabio.zattoni@unipd.it.

Pawel Rajwa (P)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland.

Marcin Miszczyk (M)

Collegium Medicum - Faculty of Medicine, WSB University, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland.

Tamás Fazekas (T)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.

Filippo Carletti (F)

Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Salvatore Carrozza (S)

Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Francesca Sattin (F)

Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Giuseppe Reitano (G)

Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Simone Botti (S)

Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Akihiro Matsukawa (A)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Fabrizio Dal Moro (F)

Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

R Jeffrey Karnes (RJ)

Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Alberto Briganti (A)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Giacomo Novara (G)

Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.

Shahrokh F Shariat (SF)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Guillaume Ploussard (G)

La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint-Fonsegrives, France.

Giorgio Gandaglia (G)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.

Classifications MeSH