• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

经会阴与经直肠磁共振成像靶向前列腺活检:前瞻性研究的系统评价和荟萃分析

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

作者信息

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

机构信息

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

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

出版信息

Eur Urol Oncol. 2024 Dec;7(6):1303-1312. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.009. Epub 2024 Aug 1.

DOI:
10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.009
PMID:39095298
Abstract

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.

摘要

背景与目的

检测具有临床意义的前列腺癌(csPCa)的益处以及磁共振成像(MRI)引导下经会阴(TP)前列腺穿刺活检(TP-Tbx)与经直肠(TR)途径相比的安全性仍是一个有争议的问题。本综述旨在比较TP-Tbx和MRI引导下经直肠穿刺活检(TR-Tbx)的有效性和安全性。

方法

在PubMed/Medline、Scopus和Web of Science中进行系统的文献检索,以识别截至2024年5月发表的比较TP-Tbx和TR-Tbx的前瞻性随机对照试验(RCT)记录。主要结局包括csPCa(国际泌尿病理学会[ISUP]≥2)的检出率和并发症发生率。

主要发现与局限性

三项RCT(PREVENT、ProBE-PC和PERFECT)符合纳入标准。TR技术通常在使用抗生素预防以降低感染风险或在直肠拭子检查后进行。在csPCa(比值比[OR]0.9,95%置信区间[CI]:0.7-1.1)或ISUP 1前列腺癌(PCa;OR 1.1,95%CI:0.8-1.4)检测方面,TP-Tbx和TR-Tbx之间未发现差异。术后感染(OR 0.8,95%CI:0.4-1.8)、脓毒症(OR 0.6,95%CI:0.1-4.5)和尿潴留率(OR 0.5,95%CI:0.1-1.6)相似。TP途径期间的疼痛略高于TR途径,但在随访7天后,两种途径之间的差异最小。每位患者穿刺活检数量、患者选择、5-α还原酶抑制剂的使用、针的尺寸、TP技术和疼痛评分(仅在一项RCT中报告)的差异,以及RCT的多中心性质,限制了本研究。

结论与临床意义

TP-Tbx和TR-Tbx在检测PCa方面显示出相似的结果,在感染、尿潴留以及处理活检相关疼痛的有效性方面具有可比性。与TR-Tbx不同,TP-Tbx可以安全地省略抗生素而不增加感染风险。由于感染问题而倾向于在实践中排除使用预防性抗生素的TR-Tbx的趋势可能会得到缓解;然而,尽管缺乏统计学意义,但一些关键结局(如感染和脓毒症)的趋势有利于TP途径。

患者总结

在前列腺癌检测和并发症方面,前列腺穿刺活检途径(经会阴[TP]与经直肠[TR])没有显著差异。然而,MRI引导下经会阴前列腺穿刺活检途径可能具有优势,因为它可以在不使用抗生素的情况下安全进行,有可能降低抗生素耐药性。

相似文献

1
Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.经会阴与经直肠磁共振成像靶向前列腺活检:前瞻性研究的系统评价和荟萃分析
Eur Urol Oncol. 2024 Dec;7(6):1303-1312. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.07.009. Epub 2024 Aug 1.
2
Is There an Impact of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Rate? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.经会阴与经直肠磁共振成像靶向活检对临床显著前列腺癌检出率的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur Urol Oncol. 2023 Dec;6(6):621-628. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.08.001. Epub 2023 Aug 25.
3
Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy versus transrectal route in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.经会阴磁共振成像靶向活检与经直肠途径在前列腺癌检测中的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024 Jun;27(2):212-221. doi: 10.1038/s41391-023-00729-4. Epub 2023 Oct 2.
4
MRI software and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.磁共振成像软件联合认知融合活检用于疑似前列腺癌患者:系统评价、网络荟萃分析和成本效果分析。
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(61):1-310. doi: 10.3310/PLFG4210.
5
Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infectious Complications: The PREVENT Randomized Trial.经会阴与经直肠磁共振成像靶向与系统前列腺穿刺活检预防感染性并发症:PREVENT 随机试验。
Eur Urol. 2024 Jul;86(1):61-68. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.12.015. Epub 2024 Jan 11.
6
Regional Versus Systematic Biopsy in Addition to Targeted Biopsy: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.除靶向活检外,区域活检与系统活检:一项系统评价和荟萃分析的结果
Eur Urol Oncol. 2025 Apr;8(2):534-543. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.10.006. Epub 2024 Oct 24.
7
Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.磁共振成像靶向活检可能比标准经直肠超声引导活检更能提高显著前列腺癌检测的诊断准确性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):438-50. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037. Epub 2014 Dec 3.
8
The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.经会阴与经直肠前列腺活检的结果:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Asian J Androl. 2012 Mar;14(2):310-5. doi: 10.1038/aja.2011.130. Epub 2011 Nov 21.
9
Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsy-A Systematic Review.磁共振成像/超声融合引导经会阴与磁共振成像/超声融合引导经直肠前列腺活检的比较:系统评价。
Eur Urol Oncol. 2021 Dec;4(6):904-913. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.012. Epub 2021 Jan 19.
10
Prostate cancer detection by MRI-ultrasonography fusion transperineal vs transrectal biopsy: a randomised control trial.磁共振成像-超声融合经会阴与经直肠活检检测前列腺癌:一项随机对照试验
BJU Int. 2025 Jun 27. doi: 10.1111/bju.16831.

引用本文的文献

1
Detection Rates of Prostate Cancer Across Prostatic Zones Using Freehand Single-Access Transperineal Fusion Biopsies.经会阴单通道徒手融合活检对前列腺各区前列腺癌的检出率
Cancers (Basel). 2025 Jun 30;17(13):2206. doi: 10.3390/cancers17132206.
2
Machine learning-based comparison of transperineal vs. transrectal biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: evaluating procedural effectiveness.基于机器学习的经会阴活检与经直肠活检在前列腺癌诊断中的比较:评估操作有效性
Can J Urol. 2025 Jun 27;32(3):173-180. doi: 10.32604/cju.2025.066016.
3
Changes in the prostate biopsy landscape-how can we improve quality?
前列腺活检领域的变化——我们如何提高质量?
Transl Androl Urol. 2025 Apr 30;14(4):880-882. doi: 10.21037/tau-2025-34. Epub 2025 Apr 11.
4
Targeting All Multiple Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prostate Lesions Does Not Enhance Cancer Detection: Insights from the YAU Prostate Cancer Group.针对所有多个磁共振成像前列腺病变并不能提高癌症检测率:来自耀前列腺癌研究小组的见解。
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2025 Apr 7;75:61-68. doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2025.03.008. eCollection 2025 May.
5
Freehand Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Improves the Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.徒手经会阴前列腺穿刺活检提高了临床显著性前列腺癌的检出率。
Urol Res Pract. 2025 Mar 7;50(5):269-274. doi: 10.5152/tud.2025.24026.
6
Optimal approach for MRI-targeted prostate biopsy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer: transperineal or transrectal?磁共振成像靶向前列腺活检检测临床显著性前列腺癌的最佳方法:经会阴还是经直肠?
Transl Androl Urol. 2025 Mar 30;14(3):489-492. doi: 10.21037/tau-2024-757. Epub 2025 Mar 26.
7
Optimizing the strategies to perform prostate biopsy in MRI-positive patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.优化MRI阳性患者前列腺活检策略:一项系统评价和网状Meta分析
EClinicalMedicine. 2025 Mar 22;82:103164. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103164. eCollection 2025 Apr.
8
Patient satisfaction rates and tolerance of free-hand ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy in an outpatient setting.门诊环境下徒手超声引导经会阴前列腺穿刺活检的患者满意度及耐受性
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2025 Mar 22. doi: 10.1007/s00261-025-04867-2.
9
Comparing and Combining Artificial Intelligence and Spectral/Statistical Approaches for Elevating Prostate Cancer Assessment in a Biparametric MRI: A Pilot Study.比较和结合人工智能与光谱/统计方法以提升双参数磁共振成像中前列腺癌评估的初步研究
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 Mar 5;15(5):625. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15050625.
10
Comparative Performance of Machine Learning Models in Reducing Unnecessary Targeted Prostate Biopsies.机器学习模型在减少不必要的靶向前列腺活检中的比较性能
Eur Urol Oncol. 2025 Feb 8. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2025.01.005.