Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39320521›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Transrectal versus transperineal prostate fusion biopsy: a pair-matched analysis to evaluate accuracy and complications.

Marco Oderda, Romain Diamand, Rawad Abou Zahr, Julien Anract, Gregoire Assenmacher, Nicolas Barry Delongchamps, Alexandre Patrick Bui, Daniel Benamran, Giorgio Calleris, Charles Dariane and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Choosing the path: insights into transperinealTranslational andrology and urology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Marco OderdaDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. marco.oderda@unito.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4681-888X
Romain DiamandDepartment of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Rawad Abou ZahrDepartment of Urology, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.
Julien AnractDivision of Urology, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris Cité University, Paris, France.
Gregoire AssenmacherDepartment of Urology, Cliniques de L'Europe-Saint Elisabeth, Brussels, Belgium.
Nicolas Barry DelongchampsDivision of Urology, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Paris Cité University, Paris, France.
Alexandre Patrick BuiDepartment of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, Reims, France.
Daniel BenamranDivision of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Giorgio CallerisDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Charles DarianeDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Mariaconsiglia FerrieroDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Gaelle FiardDepartment of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC, Grenoble, France.
Fayek TahaDepartment of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, Reims, France.
Alexandre FourcadeDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France.
Georges FournierDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France.
Karsten GuenzelDepartment of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany.
Adam HalinskiDepartment of Urology, Private Medical Center, Klinika Wisniowa", Zielona Góra, Poland.
Giancarlo MarraDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Guillaume PloussardDepartment of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France.
Katerina RysankovaDepartment of Urology and Surgical Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava University, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Jean-Baptiste RocheDepartment of Urology, Clinique Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France.
Giuseppe SimoneDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy.
Olivier WindischDivision of Urology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Paolo GonteroDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate biopsy-related complications and detection rates of any PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa, intended as grade group ≥ 2) between MRI-targeted TP fusion biopsies (TPBx) and TR ones (TRBx).

methodsWe performed a multicentric study on 4841 patients who underwent fusion biopsy between 2016 and 2023. A case-control matching was performed to find comparable cohorts of 646 TPBx and 646 TRBx. Mean T test and Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables.

resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between the cohorts, except for target location with a higher rate of anterior lesions in TPBx group. Complications were rare and no difference was found between the groups, with similar rates of infections after TRBx and TPBx (N = 5 (0.8%) vs N = 2 (0.3%), p 0.45). All patients in TRBx and 90.1% in TPBx group received antibiotic prophylaxis. A higher csPCa detection rate was found in TPBx over the group (50.5% vs 36.2%, p < 0.001). On average, positive targeted cores were increased in TPBx group, for any PCa (1.6 vs 1.4, p 0.04) and csPCa (1.0 vs 0.8, p 0.02). Among the limitations of study, we acknowledge the retrospective design and the possible under-reporting of complications.

conclusionsMRI-targeted fusion TPBx achieves a significantly higher csPCa detection than TRBx, with a diagnostic advantage for apical and anterior lesions. No significant differences were found in terms of complications that were rare in both groups, considering a widespread adoption of antibiotic prophylaxis.

Indexed as

Image-Guided BiopsyProstateProstatic NeoplasmsAgedCase-Control StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMatched-Pair AnalysisMiddle AgedPerineumPostoperative ComplicationsRectumReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesAccuracyComparisonComplicationsFusionProstate biopsyTransperinealTransrectal

Identifiers

PMID39320521
PMCPMC11424653

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.