• Something wrong with this record ?

Transrectal versus transperineal prostate fusion biopsy: a pair-matched analysis to evaluate accuracy and complications

M. Oderda, R. Diamand, R. Abou Zahr, J. Anract, G. Assenmacher, N. Barry Delongchamps, AP. Bui, D. Benamran, G. Calleris, C. Dariane, M. Ferriero, G. Fiard, F. Taha, A. Fourcade, G. Fournier, K. Guenzel, A. Halinski, G. Marra, G. Ploussard, K....

. 2024 ; 42 (1) : 535. [pub] 20240925

Language English Country Germany

Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Comparative Study

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24018859
E-resources Online Full text

NLK ProQuest Central from 1997-02-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 2000-02-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 1997-02-01 to 1 year ago

Links

PubMed 39320521
DOI 10.1007/s00345-024-05245-1
Knihovny.cz E-resources

PURPOSE: To evaluate biopsy-related complications and detection rates of any PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa, intended as grade group ≥ 2) between MRI-targeted TP fusion biopsies (TPBx) and TR ones (TRBx). METHODS: We performed a multicentric study on 4841 patients who underwent fusion biopsy between 2016 and 2023. A case-control matching was performed to find comparable cohorts of 646 TPBx and 646 TRBx. Mean T test and Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the cohorts, except for target location with a higher rate of anterior lesions in TPBx group. Complications were rare and no difference was found between the groups, with similar rates of infections after TRBx and TPBx (N = 5 (0.8%) vs N = 2 (0.3%), p 0.45). All patients in TRBx and 90.1% in TPBx group received antibiotic prophylaxis. A higher csPCa detection rate was found in TPBx over the group (50.5% vs 36.2%, p < 0.001). On average, positive targeted cores were increased in TPBx group, for any PCa (1.6 vs 1.4, p 0.04) and csPCa (1.0 vs 0.8, p 0.02). Among the limitations of study, we acknowledge the retrospective design and the possible under-reporting of complications. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-targeted fusion TPBx achieves a significantly higher csPCa detection than TRBx, with a diagnostic advantage for apical and anterior lesions. No significant differences were found in terms of complications that were rare in both groups, considering a widespread adoption of antibiotic prophylaxis.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24018859
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20241024111130.0
007      
ta
008      
241015s2024 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00345-024-05245-1 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)39320521
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Oderda, Marco $u Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. marco.oderda@unito.it $1 https://orcid.org/000000034681888X
245    10
$a Transrectal versus transperineal prostate fusion biopsy: a pair-matched analysis to evaluate accuracy and complications / $c M. Oderda, R. Diamand, R. Abou Zahr, J. Anract, G. Assenmacher, N. Barry Delongchamps, AP. Bui, D. Benamran, G. Calleris, C. Dariane, M. Ferriero, G. Fiard, F. Taha, A. Fourcade, G. Fournier, K. Guenzel, A. Halinski, G. Marra, G. Ploussard, K. Rysankova, JB. Roche, G. Simone, O. Windisch, P. Gontero
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: To evaluate biopsy-related complications and detection rates of any PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa, intended as grade group ≥ 2) between MRI-targeted TP fusion biopsies (TPBx) and TR ones (TRBx). METHODS: We performed a multicentric study on 4841 patients who underwent fusion biopsy between 2016 and 2023. A case-control matching was performed to find comparable cohorts of 646 TPBx and 646 TRBx. Mean T test and Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the cohorts, except for target location with a higher rate of anterior lesions in TPBx group. Complications were rare and no difference was found between the groups, with similar rates of infections after TRBx and TPBx (N = 5 (0.8%) vs N = 2 (0.3%), p 0.45). All patients in TRBx and 90.1% in TPBx group received antibiotic prophylaxis. A higher csPCa detection rate was found in TPBx over the group (50.5% vs 36.2%, p < 0.001). On average, positive targeted cores were increased in TPBx group, for any PCa (1.6 vs 1.4, p 0.04) and csPCa (1.0 vs 0.8, p 0.02). Among the limitations of study, we acknowledge the retrospective design and the possible under-reporting of complications. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-targeted fusion TPBx achieves a significantly higher csPCa detection than TRBx, with a diagnostic advantage for apical and anterior lesions. No significant differences were found in terms of complications that were rare in both groups, considering a widespread adoption of antibiotic prophylaxis.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    12
$a ultrazvukem navigovaná biopsie $x metody $x škodlivé účinky $7 D061705
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    12
$a nádory prostaty $x patologie $7 D011471
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    12
$a prostata $x patologie $7 D011467
650    _2
$a perineum $7 D010502
650    _2
$a rektum $7 D012007
650    _2
$a analýza párové shody $7 D016555
650    _2
$a studie případů a kontrol $7 D016022
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $x epidemiologie $7 D011183
650    _2
$a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $7 D008279
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
700    1_
$a Diamand, Romain $u Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
700    1_
$a Abou Zahr, Rawad $u Department of Urology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium
700    1_
$a Anract, Julien $u Division of Urology, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris Cité University, Paris, France
700    1_
$a Assenmacher, Gregoire $u Department of Urology, Cliniques de L'Europe-Saint Elisabeth, Brussels, Belgium
700    1_
$a Barry Delongchamps, Nicolas $u Division of Urology, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris Cité University, Paris, France
700    1_
$a Bui, Alexandre Patrick $u Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, Reims, France
700    1_
$a Benamran, Daniel $u Division of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
700    1_
$a Calleris, Giorgio $u Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
700    1_
$a Dariane, Charles $u Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Université de Paris, Paris, France
700    1_
$a Ferriero, Mariaconsiglia $u Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Fiard, Gaelle $u Department of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC, Grenoble, France
700    1_
$a Taha, Fayek $u Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, Reims, France
700    1_
$a Fourcade, Alexandre $u Department of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France
700    1_
$a Fournier, Georges $u Department of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France
700    1_
$a Guenzel, Karsten $u Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany
700    1_
$a Halinski, Adam $u Department of Urology, Private Medical Center, Klinika Wisniowa", Zielona Góra, Poland
700    1_
$a Marra, Giancarlo $u Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
700    1_
$a Ploussard, Guillaume $u Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France
700    1_
$a Rysankova, Katerina $u Department of Urology and Surgical Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava University, Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Roche, Jean-Baptiste $u Department of Urology, Clinique Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France
700    1_
$a Simone, Giuseppe $u Department of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
700    1_
$a Windisch, Olivier $u Division of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
700    1_
$a Gontero, Paolo $u Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
773    0_
$w MED00004739 $t World journal of urology $x 1433-8726 $g Roč. 42, č. 1 (2024), s. 535
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39320521 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20241015 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20241024111123 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2201616 $s 1230832
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 42 $c 1 $d 535 $e 20240925 $i 1433-8726 $m World journal of urology $n World J Urol $x MED00004739
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20241015

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options