Diagnostic outcomes from transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsies – experiences from a Swedish tertiary care Centre

References

• Stabile A, Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nat Rev Urol. 2020;17(1):41–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swedish National Prostate Cancer Guidelines: RCC Kunskapsbanken; 2020. [cited 2021]. Available from: https://www.cancercentrum.se/samverkan/cancerdiagnoser/prostata/vardprogram/.
   Google Scholar
• Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):22–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):353–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anastasiadis E, van der Meulen J, Emberton M. Hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: a database analysis in England. Int J Urol. 2015;22(2):181–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansen TEB, Zahl PH, Baco E, et al. Antibiotic resistance, hospitalizations, and mortality related to prostate biopsy: first report from the norwegian patient registry. World J Urol. 2020;38(1):17–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahdensuo K, Rannikko A, Anttila VJ, et al. Increase of prostate biopsy-related bacteremic complications in Southern Finland, 2005–2013: a population-based analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19(4):417–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundström KJ, Drevin L, Carlsson S, et al. Nationwide population based study of infections after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2014;192(4):1116–1122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013;189(1 Suppl):S12–S7. discussion S17–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togo Y, Yamamoto S. Prevention of infectious complications after prostate biopsy procedure. Int J Urol. 2017;24(7):486–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, et al. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17(1):31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Loy LM, Lim GH, Leow JJ, et al. A systematic review and Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound guided fusion biopsy of prostate for cancer detection-Comparing transrectal with transperineal approaches. Urol Oncol. 2020;38(8):650–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tu X, Liu Z, Chang T, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance Imaging-Targeted biopsy may perform better than transrectal route in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17(5):e860–e870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al.; Grading Committee. The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: Definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamada T, Kido A, Yamamoto A, et al. Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS version 2.1. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021;53(1):283–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al.; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornud F, Roumiguié M, Barry de Longchamps N, et al. Precision matters in MR imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: Evidence from a prospective study of cognitive and elastic fusion registration transrectal biopsies. Radiology. 2018;287(2):534–542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, et al. Multiparametric MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy: Advantages of a transperineal approach. Anticancer Res. 2017;37(6):3291–3294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grummet J, Pepdjonovic L, Huang S, et al. Transperineal vs. transrectal biopsy in MRI targeting. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(3):368–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts MJ, Macdonald A, Ranasinghe S, et al. Transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy under intravenous anaesthesia: a clinical, microbiological and cost analysis of 2048 cases over 11 years at a tertiary institution. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24(1):169–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez JF, Campbell A, Omer A, et al. Local anaesthetic transperineal (LATP) prostate biopsy using a probe-mounted transperineal access system: a multicentre prospective outcome analysis. BJU Int. 2021;128(3):311–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar