Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Feb 13;17(1):31.
doi: 10.1186/s12957-019-1573-0.

Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jianjian Xiang  1 , Huaqing Yan  2 , Jiangfeng Li  2 , Xiao Wang  2 , Hong Chen  3 , Xiangyi Zheng  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jianjian Xiang et al. World J Surg Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: Because conventional prostate biopsy has some limitations, optimal variations of prostate biopsy strategies have emerged to improve the diagnosis rate of prostate cancer. We conducted the systematic review to compare the diagnosis rate and complications of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy. We searched for online publications published through June 27, 2018, in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. The relative risk and 95% confidence interval were utilized to appraise the diagnosis and complication rate. The condensed relative risk of 11 included studies indicated that transperineal prostate biopsy has the same diagnosis accuracy of transrectal prostate biopsy; however, a significantly lower risk of fever and rectal bleeding was reported for transperineal prostate biopsy. No clue of publication bias could be identified.

Short conclusion: To conclude, this review indicated that transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy have the same diagnosis accuracy, but the transperineal approach has a lower risk of fever and rectal bleeding. More studies are warranted to confirm these findings and discover a more effective diagnosis method for prostate cancer.

Keywords: Complication; Diagnosis accuracy; Prostate biopsy; Transperineal; Transrectal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All analyses were based on previous published studies thus no ethical approval and patient consent are required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of study assessment and selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Relative risks for RCTs assessing the diagnosis rate of the TP approach vs the TR approach. Notes: diamonds represent study-specific relative risks (RRs) or summary relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Horizontal lines represent 95% CIs. Test for heterogeneity among studies: P = 0.678, I2 = 0.0%
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Relative risks for observational studies assessing the diagnosis rate of the TP approach vs the TR approach. Notes: diamonds represent study-specific relative risks (RRs) or summary relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Horizontal lines represent 95% CIs. Test for heterogeneity among studies: P = 0.151, I2 = 36.3%
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Egger’s publication bias plot for RCTs. Notes: Egger’s regression asymmetry test (P = 0.74). Standardized effect was defined as the odds ratio divided by its standard error. Precision was defined as the inverse of the standard error
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Egger’s publication bias plot for observational studies. Notes: Egger’s regression asymmetry test (P = 0.49). Standardized effect was defined as the odds ratio divided by its standard error. Precision was defined as the inverse of the standard error
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21442. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hayes JH, Barry MJ. Screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test: a review of current evidence. Jama. 2014;311:1143–1149. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.2085. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee A, Chia SJ. Contemporary outcomes in the detection of prostate cancer using transrectal ultrasound-guided 12-core biopsy in Singaporean men with elevated prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. Asian J Urol. 2015;2:187–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2015.08.003. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:71–74. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)38664-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–629. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms