ReviewCureus2024
Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy Approach in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- End of the TRUS era: transperineal biopsy takes the lead in prostate cancer detection.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Article
- Evolution of the prostate cancer diagnostic paradigm: integrated evidence and clinical pathways from targeted biopsy to biopsy-free strategy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) has high prevalence rates in men and is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Transrectal (TR) biopsy has traditionally been the gold standard for diagnosis, but transperineal (TP) biopsy is increasingly favoured due to its lower infection risk. However, debate remains regarding which method has superior cancer detection rates. This review compares the efficacy and safety of the TP as compared to the TR prostate biopsy approach, summarizing the largest body of evidence available to date. A literature search was performed on the PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. We searched from the inception of the databases up to August 2024 for relevant studies comparing the cancer detection rate of TP versus TR prostate biopsy and compared their complication rates. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate the differences between the TR and TP groups in the PCa detection rate. This meta-analysis included 21 studies (6 randomized control trials and 15 cohort studies) with a total of 13,818 patients (TP = 7917; TR = 5901), who were accrued between 2008 and 2024 and divided into the TR group and the TP group. The analysis revealed no significant difference in prostate cancer detection rates between the TP and TR approaches in both RCTs (OR 1.02, 95% CI (0.74, 1.41), p = 0.90) and cohort studies (OR 1.07, 95% CI (0.85, 1.35), p = 0.36). Complication profiles were largely comparable; TP demonstrated a significantly lower risk of urinary tract infections (OR 0.26, 95% CI (0.11, 0.61)) but no notable differences in acute urinary retention, haematuria, or rectal bleeding. Our findings advocate the TP approach as a safer biopsy alternative where feasible, particularly in infection-sensitive populations, without compromising diagnostic accuracy. MRI should complement biopsy strategies to enhance diagnostic precision. Future research should focus on standardized, large-scale RCTs to further refine and personalize prostate cancer diagnostic pathways.
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.