Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38212178›Full record

Trial reportEuropean urology2024

Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infectious Complications: The PREVENT Randomized Trial.

Jim C Hu, Melissa Assel, Mohamad E Allaf, Behfar Ehdaie, Andrew J Vickers, Andrew J Cohen, Benjamin T Ristau, David A Green, Misop Han, Michael E Rezaee and 14 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in European urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06517901 (MRI-targeted Fusion or Cognitive Ultrasound-guided Biopsy to Detect Prostate Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 96 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
65.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT06517901 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

MRI-targeted Fusion or Cognitive Ultrasound-guided Biopsy to Detect Prostate Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorAlbany Medical CollegeRan2025 to 2027Enrolled1,306ConditionsProstate Cancer, DiagnosisArmsSoftware fusion prostate biopsy, Cognitive fusion prostate biopsy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 157 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Successes and challenges in developing a magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound machine fusion prostate biopsy service.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Jim C HuBrady Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medicine Hospital, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: jch9011@med.cornell.edu.
Melissa AsselDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Mohamad E AllafJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Behfar EhdaieUrology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Andrew J VickersDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Andrew J CohenJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Benjamin T RistauDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, UConn Health, Farmington, CT, USA.
David A GreenBrady Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medicine Queens, New York, NY, USA.
Misop HanJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael E RezaeeJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Christian P PavlovichJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jeffrey S MontgomeryDepartment of Urology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Keith J KowalczykDepartment of Urology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Ashley E RossDepartment of Urology, Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Shilajit D KunduDepartment of Urology, Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Hiten D PatelDepartment of Urology, Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Gerald J WangBrady Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medicine Queens, New York, NY, USA.
John N GrahamBrady Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medicine Brooklyn, New York, NY, USA.
Jonathan E ShoagDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Ahmed GhaziJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Nirmish SinglaJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael A GorinDepartment of Urologic Surgery, The Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Anthony J SchaefferDepartment of Urology, Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Edward M SchaefferDepartment of Urology, Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USNorthwestern University · USCornell University · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USGeorgetown University · USMichigan Medicine · USNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · USUConn Health · USUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Evaluation of Transperineal Biopsy under Local Anesthesia, a Novel approach to Decrease Post-Biopsy Infections and Improve Cancer DetectionR01CA241758 · NCI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI ALLAF, MOHAMAD, HU, JIM · 2020 to 2024
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS R01 CA241758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThe transrectal biopsy approach is traditionally used to detect prostate cancer. An alternative transperineal approach is historically performed under general anesthesia, but recent advances enable transperineal biopsy to be performed under local anesthesia. We sought to compare infectious complications of transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis versus transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis.

methodsWe assigned biopsy-naïve participants to undergo transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis versus transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis (rectal culture screening for fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria and antibiotic targeting to culture and sensitivity results) through a multicenter, randomized trial. The primary outcome was post-biopsy infection captured by a prospective medical review and patient report on a 7-d survey. The secondary outcomes included cancer detection, noninfectious complications, and a numerical rating scale (0-10) for biopsy-related pain and discomfort during and 7-d after biopsy. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 658 participants were randomized, with zero transperineal versus four (1.4%) transrectal biopsy infections (difference -1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.2%, 0.3%; p = 0.059). The rates of other complications were very low and similar. Importantly, detection of clinically significant cancer was similar (53% transperineal vs 50% transrectal, adjusted difference 2.0%; 95% CI -6.0, 10). Participants in the transperineal arm experienced worse periprocedural pain (0.6 adjusted difference [0-10 scale], 95% CI 0.2, 0.9), but the effect was small and resolved by 7-d. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Office-based transperineal biopsy is tolerable, does not compromise cancer detection, and did not result in infectious complications. Transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis achieved similar infection rates, but requires rectal cultures and careful attention to antibiotic selection and administration. Consideration of these factors and antibiotic stewardship should guide clinical decision-making. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this multicenter randomized trial, we compare prostate biopsy infectious complications for the transperineal versus transrectal approach. The absence of infectious complications with transperineal biopsy without the use of preventative antibiotics is noteworthy, but not significantly different from transrectal biopsy with targeted antibiotic prophylaxis.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisImage-Guided BiopsyPerineumProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRectumAgedHumansMagnetic Resonance Imaging, InterventionalMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesCancer detectionInfectionsTransperineal biopsyTransrectal biopsy

Identifiers

PMID38212178
PMCPMC11976521
OpenAlexW4390748114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.