Literature DB >> 18308081

Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy.

Ryoei Hara1, Yoshimasa Jo, Tomohiro Fujii, Norio Kondo, Teruhiko Yokoyoma, Yoshiyuki Miyaji, Atsushi Nagai.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy are both used for prostate cancer detection. However, which approach is superior remains unknown. In this study, we performed a prospective randomized study to compare the efficacy of transperineal versus transrectal 12-core initial prostate biopsy.
METHODS: From May 2003 to October 2005, a prospective randomized study of transperineal versus transrectal 12-core biopsy (126 and 120 patients, respectively) was conducted in 246 patients with a prostate-specific antigen level of 4.0 to 20.0 ng/mL. All procedures were performed with the patient in the lithotomy position, with the transperineal and transrectal approach performed with spinal anesthesia (0.5% bupivacaine) or a caudal block (1% lidocaine), respectively. With both approaches, eight biopsy specimens were obtained systematically from the peripheral zone, including the apex, and four from the transition zone.
RESULTS: The cancer detection rate was 42.1% (53 of 126 patients) with the transperineal approach and 48.3% (58 of 120 patients) with the transrectal approach (P = 0.323). For all patients undergoing transperineal and transrectal biopsy, the cancer core rate (cancer core number/biopsy core number) was 13.7% (207 of 1512 cores) and 14.4% (208 of 1440 cores), respectively (P = 0.566). Apart from headache, presumably related to the spinal anesthesia, no significant differences were found in the complications between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found in the cancer detection rate, cancer core rate, or complications between the two approaches. We believe that the preferred approach as an initial prostate biopsy is the transrectal approach, which does not require spinal anesthesia or another burdensome process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18308081     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.09.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  41 in total

Review 1.  The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Peng-Fei Shen; Yu-Chun Zhu; Wu-Ran Wei; Yong-Zhong Li; Jie Yang; Yu-Tao Li; Ding-Ming Li; Jia Wang; Hao Zeng
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 3.285

2.  Endoclipping treatment of life-threatening rectal bleeding after prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Panagiotis Katsinelos; Jannis Kountouras; Georgios Dimitriadis; Grigoris Chatzimavroudis; Christos Zavos; Ioannis Pilpilidis; George Paroutoglou; George Germanidis; Kostas Mimidis
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-03-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Transperineal biopsy of the prostate--is this the future?

Authors:  Dwayne T S Chang; Benjamin Challacombe; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  [Infection and sepsis prevention in prostate biopsy].

Authors:  F M E Wagenlehner; A Pilatz; P Waliszewski; T Dansranjavin; W Weidner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  Prostate biopsy for the interventional radiologist.

Authors:  Cheng William Hong; Hayet Amalou; Sheng Xu; Baris Turkbey; Pingkun Yan; Jochen Kruecker; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.464

6.  Prospective evaluation of the safety of transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy based on adverse events.

Authors:  Takeshi Namekawa; Satoshi Fukasawa; Atsushi Komaru; Masayuki Kobayashi; Yusuke Imamura; Takayuki Ohzeki; Kimiaki Takagi; Yosuke Sato; Koichiro Akakura; Tomohiko Ichikawa; Takeshi Ueda
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Retrospective analysis of prostate cancer recurrence potential with tissue metabolomic profiles.

Authors:  Andreas Maxeiner; Christen B Adkins; Yifen Zhang; Matthias Taupitz; Elkan F Halpern; W Scott McDougal; Chin-Lee Wu; Leo L Cheng
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 4.104

8.  Combination of C-TRUS with multiparametric MRI: potential for improving detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  T Strunk; G Decker; W Willinek; S C Mueller; S Rogenhofer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-08-12       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Does needle calibre affect pain and complication rates in patients undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy? A prospective, randomized trial.

Authors:  Giovanni Saredi; Saredi Giovanni; Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Francesco Fidanza; Fidanza Francesco; Stefano De Stefani; De Stefani Stefano; Salvatore Micali; Micali Salvatore; Paterlini Maurizio; Maurizio Paterlini; Roberto D'Amico; Giampaolo Bianchi; Bianchi Giampaolo
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2009-09-21       Impact factor: 3.285

10.  Role of ¹⁸F-choline PET/CT in suspicion of relapse following definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Sotirios Chondrogiannis; Maria Cristina Marzola; Alice Ferretti; Anna Margherita Maffione; Lucia Rampin; Gaia Grassetto; Cristina Nanni; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.