Xue Jianxin, Qin Zhiqiang, Cai Hongzhou, Zhang Chuanjie, Li Xiao, Xu Weizhang, Wang Jingyuan, Xu Zicheng, Yu Bin, Xu Ting, Zou Qin
Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Southeast University, Nanjing, 210003, China.
Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, China.
Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 4;8(14):23322-23336. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15056.
To systematically assess the efficacy and complications of transrectal (TR) versus transperineal (TP) prostate biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa). A meta-analysis was performed by searching the databases Pubmed, Embase and Web of science for the relevant available studies until September 1st, 2016, and thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate the differences of TR and TP groups in PCa detection rate. Then, trial sequential analysis was performed to reduce the risk of type I error and estimated whether the evidence of the results was reliable. Overall, this meta-analysis included a total of 4280 patients, who had been accrued between April 2000 and Aug 2014 and randomly divided into TR group and TP group. Prostate biopsies included sextant, extensive and saturation biopsy procedures. Patients who received TP prostate biopsy had no significant improvement in PCa detection rate, comparing TR group. Moreover, when comparing TR and TP studies, no significant difference was found in abnormal DRE findings, serum PSA level measurement, Gleason score, prostate volume. Besides, this meta-analysis showed no obvious differences between these two groups in terms of relevant complications. Therefore, this meta-analysis revealed that no significant differences were found in PCa detection rate between TP and TR approaches for prostate biopsy. However, with regard to pain relief and additional anesthesia, TR prostate needle biopsy was relatively preferable, compared to TP prostate biopsy.
系统评估经直肠(TR)与经会阴(TP)前列腺活检在前列腺癌(PCa)检测中的疗效及并发症。通过检索PubMed、Embase和Web of science数据库,查找截至2016年9月1日的相关可用研究,进行荟萃分析,13项研究符合纳入标准。计算合并比值比及95%置信区间,以评估TR组和TP组在PCa检测率上的差异。然后,进行试验序贯分析以降低I类错误风险,并评估结果证据是否可靠。总体而言,该荟萃分析共纳入4280例患者,这些患者于2000年4月至2014年8月期间入组,并随机分为TR组和TP组。前列腺活检包括六分区、广泛和饱和活检程序。与TR组相比,接受TP前列腺活检的患者在PCa检测率上无显著改善。此外,比较TR和TP研究时,在直肠指检异常结果、血清PSA水平测量、Gleason评分、前列腺体积方面未发现显著差异。此外,该荟萃分析显示两组在相关并发症方面无明显差异。因此,该荟萃分析表明,TP和TR前列腺活检方法在PCa检测率上无显著差异。然而,在疼痛缓解和额外麻醉方面,与TP前列腺活检相比,TR前列腺穿刺活检相对更可取。