Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31660936›Full record

ArticleBMC urology2019

Comparisons of cancer detection rate and complications between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy approaches - a single center preliminary study.

Guan-Lin Huang, Chih-Hsiung Kang, Wei-Ching Lee, Po-Hui Chiang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Guan-Lin HuangDepartment of Urology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No.123, Dapi Rd., Niaosong Dist., Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Chih-Hsiung KangDepartment of Urology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No.123, Dapi Rd., Niaosong Dist., Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Wei-Ching LeeDepartment of Urology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No.123, Dapi Rd., Niaosong Dist., Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Po-Hui ChiangDepartment of Urology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, No.123, Dapi Rd., Niaosong Dist., Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China. tuoa480713@yahoo.com.tw.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate biopsy remains the gold standard approach to verify prostate cancer diagnosis. Transrectal (TR) biopsy is a regular modality, while transperineal (TP) biopsy is an alternative for the patients who display persistently high levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and thus have to undergo repeat biopsy. This study aimed to compare the cancer detection rates between TR and TP approaches and assess the post-bioptic complications of the two procedures. Besides, the feasibility of performing TP biopsies under local anesthesia was also evaluated.

methodsA total of 238 outpatient visits meeting the criteria for prostate cancer biopsy were enrolled for this study. They were divided into two groups: the TP group (n = 130) consists of patients destined to undergo local anesthetic TP biopsy; and the TR group (n = 108) contained those who received TR biopsy as comparison. Age, PSA level, digital rectal exam (DRE) finding, prostate volume, and biopsy core number were used as the parameters of the multivariable analyses. The comparable items included cancer detection rate, complication rate, admission rate and visual analog scale (VAS) score.

resultsThe cancer detection rates between TP and TR groups were quite comparable (45% v.s. 49%) (p = 0.492). However, the TP group, as compared to the TR group, had significantly lower incidence of infection-related complications (except epididymitis and prostatitis) that commonly occur after biopsies. None of the patients in the TP group were hospitalized due to the post-bioptic complications, whereas there was still a minor portion of those in the TR group (7.4%) requiring hospitalization after biopsy. Medians (25-75% quartiles) of visual analog scale (VAS) were 3 [3, 4] and 4 [3-5] respectively for the TP and TR procedures under local anesthesia, but no statistical significance existed between them (p = 0.085).

conclusionsPatients receiving TP biopsy are less likely to manifest infection-related complications. Therefore, TP biopsy is a more feasible local anesthetic approach for prostate cancer detection if there are concerns for infectious complications and/or the risk of general anesthesia.

Indexed as

AgedAnesthesia, LocalBiopsyFeasibility StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerineumPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesProstatic NeoplasmsRectumLocal anesthesiaProstate biopsyTransperineal (TP)Transrectal (TR)

Identifiers

PMID31660936
PMCPMC6816188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.