ReviewCancers2025
Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and Complication Rate of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 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
- Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Across Settings With and Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeting.European urology open science · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Machine learning-based comparison of transperineal vs. transrectal biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: evaluating procedural effectiveness.The Canadian journal of urology · 2025Article
- The risk prediction model for acute urine retention after perineal prostate biopsy based on the LASSO approach and Boruta feature selection.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTransperineal prostate (TP) biopsy has emerged as a substantial alternative to the conventional transrectal (TR) approach for prostate sampling by its ability to sample specific areas of the prostate more effectively. The objective of this review is to conduct a comparative analysis of the current literature regarding diagnostic accuracy, complication rate and clinical outcome of transrectal vs. transperineal approaches in prostate biopsy-naïve patients and in repeated biopsy scenarios. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn extensive search of the literature in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted between September 2010 and September 2024. We utilized a robust and comprehensive retrieval strategy including phrasing the two approaches as follows: (perineal or transperineal) and (rectal or transrectal).
conclusionsThe transperineal and transrectal approaches show similar results in the detection of PCa in biopsy-naïve men, similar rates of infection, urinary retention and effectiveness managing biopsy-associated pain. However, in the rebiopsy scenario, the TP approach has demonstrated increased accuracy compared to the TR approach. This has significant implications in decision making and patient counselling.
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.