Mirsya Warli Syah, Rizky Valentino Torry Stivano, Dharma Kadar Dhirajaya, Putra Siregar Ginanda, Febrian Prapiska Fauriski
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sumatera Utara - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Indonesia.
Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia - Haji Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia.
Urol Res Pract. 2025 Jan 3;50(4):208-218. doi: 10.5152/tud.2025.24094.
Improved prostate biopsy procedures have been developed to overcome traditional limitations, aiming to enhance cancer diagnosis accuracy. To assess the existing knowledge of the effectiveness and risks linked to transperineal (TP) vs. transrectal (TR) prostate biopsy. Approaches: a comprehensive search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to locate all pertinent papers published till June 8, 2023. Data on cancer detection rate and complications after prostate biopsy were gathered and analyzed via Review Manager software. A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the influence of the study type. A total of 19 publications, involving 80133 patients with suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent prostate biopsy, were enrolled in the analysis. The pooled estimate demonstrated no significant differences in the cancer detection rate between TR and TP (risk difference (RD)=0.03; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.08; P = .12). In terms of complications, the TP approach significantly decreased the risk of rectal bleeding (odds ratio (OR)=0.24; 95% CI: 0.12-0.51; P < .001), fever and urinary tract infection (OR=0.28; 95% CI: 0.15-0.52; P < .001), and sepsis (OR=0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.90; P=.02) compared to the TR approach. In conclusion, there was no significant disparity in the cancer detection rate between TP and TR approaches. However, the TP strategy exhibited an advantage over TR due to a reduced risk of infection and rectal bleeding. Further research is needed to validate these results and develop a more efficient diagnostic approach for prostate cancer.
为克服传统局限性,已开发出改进的前列腺活检程序,旨在提高癌症诊断准确性。评估经会阴(TP)与经直肠(TR)前列腺活检相关有效性和风险的现有知识。方法:在PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆进行全面检索,以查找截至2023年6月8日发表的所有相关论文。通过Review Manager软件收集并分析前列腺活检后癌症检测率和并发症的数据。进行亚组分析以评估研究类型的影响。共有19篇出版物纳入分析,涉及80133例疑似前列腺癌并接受前列腺活检的患者。汇总估计显示,TR和TP之间的癌症检测率无显著差异(风险差异(RD)=0.03;95%置信区间:-0.01至0.08;P = 0.12)。在并发症方面,与TR方法相比,TP方法显著降低了直肠出血风险(优势比(OR)=0.24;95%置信区间:0.12 - 0.51;P < 0.001)、发热和尿路感染风险(OR=0.28;95%置信区间:0.15 - 0.52;P < 0.001)以及败血症风险(OR=0.50;95%置信区间:0.28 - 0.90;P = 0.02)。总之,TP和TR方法在癌症检测率上无显著差异。然而,由于感染和直肠出血风险降低,TP策略比TR表现出优势。需要进一步研究来验证这些结果,并开发一种更有效的前列腺癌诊断方法。