본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Prostate cancer detection by MRI-ultrasonography fusion transperineal vs transrectal biopsy: a randomised control trial.

1/5 보강
BJU international 2025 Vol.136(4) p. 698-706
Retraction 확인
출처

PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 2/4)

유사 논문
P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
233 patients were randomised (119 patients with 168 lesions in the TP group and 114 patients with 151 lesions in the TR group).
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
추출되지 않음
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
There were no sepsis events and biopsy was tolerated in both patient groups. MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy using a TP approach may be more advantageous for anterior and smaller lesions, higher powered studies are needed.

Schieda N, Morash C, Lavallee LT, Flood TA, Cagiannos I, Elzayat E, Patni Z, Ramsay T, Breau RH

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[OBJECTIVE] To compare clinically significant prostate cancer (CS-PCa) detection by transperineal (TP) compared to transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasonography (US) fusion prostat

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • p-value P = 0.03
  • p-value P = 0.01
  • 95% CI 45-64

이 논문을 인용하기

BibTeX ↓ RIS ↓
APA Schieda N, Morash C, et al. (2025). Prostate cancer detection by MRI-ultrasonography fusion transperineal vs transrectal biopsy: a randomised control trial.. BJU international, 136(4), 698-706. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16831
MLA Schieda N, et al.. "Prostate cancer detection by MRI-ultrasonography fusion transperineal vs transrectal biopsy: a randomised control trial.." BJU international, vol. 136, no. 4, 2025, pp. 698-706.
PMID 40576491
DOI 10.1111/bju.16831

Abstract

[OBJECTIVE] To compare clinically significant prostate cancer (CS-PCa) detection by transperineal (TP) compared to transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasonography (US) fusion prostate biopsy.

[PATIENTS AND METHODS] Males with abnormal prostate MRI (one or more lesion[s], Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3) consenting to prostate biopsy were enrolled in a randomised control trial (NCT03936127) performed at single-site tertiary care referral centre from October 2022 to June 2024. The patients were randomised to either TP or TR biopsy approach. The primary outcome was CS-PCa (International Society of Urogenital Pathology Grade Group ≥2). Subgroup analysis of the primary outcome was stratified by lesion location (posterior, anterior; and apex, middle, base) and PI-RADS score. Secondary outcomes were detection of any grade PCa, infection, and patient pain score.

[RESULTS] In total, 233 patients were randomised (119 patients with 168 lesions in the TP group and 114 patients with 151 lesions in the TR group). CS-PCa was detected in: 61% (73/119; 95% confidence interval [CI] 52-70%) for TP and 54% (62/114; 95% CI 45-64%) for TR (relative risk [RR] 1.13, 95% CI 0.93-1.38, P = 0.23). Adjusted CS-PCa detection rates were higher for TP in anterior lesions: 29% (95% CI 15-49%) vs 16% (95% CI 7-31%) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.05-3.12; P = 0.03) and PI-RADS score 4 lesions: 51% (95% CI 39-62%) vs 30% (95% CI 19-43%) (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.13-2.76; P = 0.01), with no difference in apical lesions (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.37; P = 0.65). The median (interquartile range) pain score was 3 (2-4) in the TP group and 2 (1-5) in the TR group (P = 0.09). There were no urinary tract infections or urosepsis events in either group. No patient was withdrawn due to adverse events.

[CONCLUSIONS] In this trial, we failed to demonstrate a statistically significant, increase in the detection of CS-PCa using TP compared to TR biopsy. There were no sepsis events and biopsy was tolerated in both patient groups. MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy using a TP approach may be more advantageous for anterior and smaller lesions, higher powered studies are needed.

MeSH Terms

Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Middle Aged; Aged; Image-Guided Biopsy; Perineum; Prostate; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Ultrasonography, Interventional