Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41908242›Full record

ArticleProstate international2026

Transperineal versus transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-fusion ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a comparative analysis of cancer detection in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound scan biopsy.

Teerachai Singharat, Winn Wisawasukmongchol, Julin Opanurak, Kaureuk Suksupha, Supoj Ratchanon, Pea Pobpan, Gantapong Sainont, Kawintharat Harirugsakul, Dutsadee Sowanthip

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Teerachai SingharatDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Winn WisawasukmongcholKlang Hospital, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Bangkok, Thailand.
Julin OpanurakDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kaureuk SuksuphaKlang Hospital, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Bangkok, Thailand.
Supoj RatchanonDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pea PobpanDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Gantapong SainontDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kawintharat HarirugsakulDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Dutsadee SowanthipDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, The Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare and identify factors associated with prostate cancer detection between transperineal (TP) and transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with a prior negative transrectal ultrasound scan (TRUS) biopsy. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 362 patients with a prior negative TRUS-guided biopsy who underwent MRI-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital between 2015 and 2024 were retrospectively screened. Nineteen were excluded because of insufficient clinical or imaging data. Patients were categorized into two groups: transrectal biopsy (n = 86) and transperineal biopsy (n = 257). Cancer-detection rates, baseline characteristics, MRI parameters, and perioperative complications were compared between the two cohorts. Results: Baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index (BMI), total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, and PSA density, were generally comparable between the TP and TR biopsy groups, except for previous biopsy history and lesion size. The TP approach showed significantly higher detection rates for overall prostate cancer [57.2 % vs 40.7 %; odds ratio (OR): 1.95, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.19-3.20; Conclusion: Transperineal biopsy is the preferred approach for patients with a prior negative TRUS biopsy. Cancer detection was correlated with the transperineal approach, higher PI-RADS scores, clinical staging, and older age.

Indexed as

MRI–fusion ultrasound-guided prostate biopsyPrior negative TRUS biopsyProstate cancer detection rateTransperineal biopsyTransrectal biopsy

Identifiers

PMID41908242
PMCPMC13030943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.