ReviewProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2021
Rationale and protocol for randomized study of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy efficacy and complications (ProBE-PC study).
Review in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Superior cancer detection with transperineal biopsy in patients with an elevated prostate-specific antigen level and a PI-RADS score of 3-4: A retrospective cohort study.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Evolution of the prostate cancer diagnostic paradigm: integrated evidence and clinical pathways from targeted biopsy to biopsy-free strategy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- TRexit is going one step further.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Article
- The transition from transrectal to transperineal prostate biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis: Cancer detection rates and complication rates.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2023Article
- Utilizing a Questionnaire to Implement a Risk-based Antibiotic Prophylaxis Protocol for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy.Urology · 2023Article
- Occurrence and significance of fluoroquinolone-resistant and ESBL-producingJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2022Article
- MRI-directed biopsy for primary detection of prostate cancer in a population of 223 men: MRI In-Bore vs MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted techniques.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Rationale and protocol for randomized study of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy efficacy and complications (ProBE-PC study).Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2021Review
- What level of evidence will it take to move towards widespread adoption of transperineal prostate biopsy in the USA?Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRrisk of infection and hospitalization after transrectal prostate biopsy (TRBx) has been increasing worldwide. Several modified antibiotic regimens have met with variable success in preventing such infections. Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) is increasingly recommended as the preferred alternative due to a potentially lower risk of post-biopsy infections. Aim of this review is to define the magnitude of post-biopsy complications and the effectiveness of preventive strategies, including TPBx approach.
methodsWe performed a focused review of literature on infectious complications after TRBx and detailed the use of various preventive measures. We summarized the effectiveness of several preventive measures, including TPBx, and outlined the inconsistencies in reported outcomes. We identified potential barriers to the uptake of TPBx, including the gap in knowledge such as lack of high-quality evidence.
resultsSeveral antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, including targeted and augmented, have been utilized for TRBx without demonstrating a clearly superior regimen. Of the non-antibiotic preventive measure, povidone-iodine rectal prep appears to be most effective strategy. Several single-arm cohort studies have reported very low rates of infections after TPBx and demonstrated the feasibility of an office-based procedure. However, barriers to the adoption of TPBx exist including retrospective data, and conflicting results showing minimal reduction in complications with increased burden of resource utilization. Presently, there are no randomized studies comparing the infectious complications after TRBx and TPBx. We discuss the rationale and protocol for a randomized controlled trial to determine the comparative effectiveness of biopsy techniques.
conclusionsTPBx approach has the potential to lower the rate of post-biopsy infections and hospitalizations. However, there are several barriers to widespread adoption of this approach including inconsistencies in reported outcomes and lack of Level-1 evidence. Randomized controlled studies are required to directly compare the infectious complications associated with each biopsy procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.