• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

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

F. Zattoni, P. Rajwa, M. Miszczyk, T. Fazekas, F. Carletti, S. Carrozza, F. Sattin, G. Reitano, S. Botti, A. Matsukawa, F. Dal Moro, R. Jeffrey Karnes, A. Briganti, G. Novara, SF. Shariat, G. Ploussard, G. Gandaglia

. 2024 ; 7 (6) : 1303-1312. [pub] 20240801

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, systematický přehled, metaanalýza, srovnávací studie, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25003313

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.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25003313
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250206104240.0
007      
ta
008      
250121s2024 ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.009 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)39095298
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Zattoni, Fabio $u 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
245    10
$a Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies / $c F. Zattoni, P. Rajwa, M. Miszczyk, T. Fazekas, F. Carletti, S. Carrozza, F. Sattin, G. Reitano, S. Botti, A. Matsukawa, F. Dal Moro, R. Jeffrey Karnes, A. Briganti, G. Novara, SF. Shariat, G. Ploussard, G. Gandaglia
520    9_
$a 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.
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    12
$a perineum $7 D010502
650    12
$a nádory prostaty $x patologie $7 D011471
650    12
$a prostata $x patologie $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D011467
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a rektum $x patologie $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D012007
650    _2
$a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $x metody $7 D008279
650    _2
$a magnetická rezonance intervenční $x metody $7 D053783
650    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma $7 D016032
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Rajwa, Pawel $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
700    1_
$a Miszczyk, Marcin $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Collegium Medicum - Faculty of Medicine, WSB University, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland
700    1_
$a Fazekas, Tamás $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
700    1_
$a Carletti, Filippo $u Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
700    1_
$a Carrozza, Salvatore $u Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
700    1_
$a Sattin, Francesca $u Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
700    1_
$a Reitano, Giuseppe $u Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
700    1_
$a Botti, Simone $u Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
700    1_
$a Matsukawa, Akihiro $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Dal Moro, Fabrizio $u Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
700    1_
$a Jeffrey Karnes, R $u Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
700    1_
$a Briganti, Alberto $u Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Novara, Giacomo $u Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria; Research Center for Evidence Medicine, Urology Department Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
700    1_
$a Ploussard, Guillaume $u La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint-Fonsegrives, France
700    1_
$a Gandaglia, Giorgio $u Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
773    0_
$w MED00205913 $t European urology oncology $x 2588-9311 $g Roč. 7, č. 6 (2024), s. 1303-1312
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39095298 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250121 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250206104236 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2263210 $s 1239320
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 7 $c 6 $d 1303-1312 $e 20240801 $i 2588-9311 $m European urology oncology $n Eur Urol Oncol $x MED00205913
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250121

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace