Transrectal vs. transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia: Prospective comparative analysis of cancer detection, safety and tolerability using patient-reported outcome measures at a single centre
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 1 publication
References 0 publications
Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation
Background People with suspected prostate cancer are usually offered either a local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy or a general anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy. Transperineal prostate biopsy is often carried out under general anaesthetic due to pain caused by the procedure. However, recent studies suggest that performing local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy may better identify cancer in particular regions of the prostate and reduce infection rates, while being carried out in an outpatient setting. Devices to assist with freehand methods of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate may also help practitioners performing prostate biopsies. Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate and general anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy for people with suspected prostate cancer, and local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with specific freehand devices in comparison with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate and transperineal prostate biopsy conducted with a grid and stepping device conducted under local or general anaesthetic. Data sources and methods We conducted a systematic review of studies comparing the diagnostic yield and clinical effectiveness of different methods for performing prostate biopsies. We used pairwise and network meta-analyses to pool evidence on cancer detection rates and structured narrative synthesis for other outcomes. For the economic evaluation, we reviewed published and submitted evidence and developed a model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the different biopsy methods. Results We included 19 comparative studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational comparative studies) and 4 single-arm studies of freehand devices. There were no statistically significant differences in cancer detection rates for local anaesthetic transperineal prostate (any method) compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.18) (n = 5 randomised controlled trials), as was the case for local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with a freehand device compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (relative risk 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 2.04) (n = 1 randomised controlled trial). Results of meta-analyses of observational studies were similar. The economic analysis indicated that local anaesthetic transperineal prostate is likely to be cost-effective compared with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (incremental cost below £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) and less costly and no less effective than general anaesthetic transperineal prostate. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with a freehand device is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy: incremental cost versus local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate of £743 per quality-adjusted life-year for people with magnetic resonance imaging Likert score of 3 or more at first biopsy. Limitations There is limited evidence for efficacy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. There is comparative evidence for the PrecisionPoint™ Transperineal Access System (BXTAccelyon Ltd, Burnham, UK) but limited or no evidence for the other freehand devices. Evidence for other outcomes is sparse. The cost-effectiveness results are sensitive to uncertainty over cancer detection rates, complication rates and the numbers of core samples taken with the different biopsy methods and the costs of processing them. Conclusions Transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthetic is equally efficient at detecting prostate cancer as transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy under local anaesthetic but it may be better with a freehand device. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate is associated with urinary retention type complications, whereas local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate has a higher infection rate. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy with a freehand device appears to meet conventional levels of costeffectiveness compared with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266443. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134220) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 28, No. 60. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation
Background People with suspected prostate cancer are usually offered either a local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy or a general anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy. Transperineal prostate biopsy is often carried out under general anaesthetic due to pain caused by the procedure. However, recent studies suggest that performing local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy may better identify cancer in particular regions of the prostate and reduce infection rates, while being carried out in an outpatient setting. Devices to assist with freehand methods of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate may also help practitioners performing prostate biopsies. Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate and general anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy for people with suspected prostate cancer, and local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with specific freehand devices in comparison with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate and transperineal prostate biopsy conducted with a grid and stepping device conducted under local or general anaesthetic. Data sources and methods We conducted a systematic review of studies comparing the diagnostic yield and clinical effectiveness of different methods for performing prostate biopsies. We used pairwise and network meta-analyses to pool evidence on cancer detection rates and structured narrative synthesis for other outcomes. For the economic evaluation, we reviewed published and submitted evidence and developed a model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the different biopsy methods. Results We included 19 comparative studies (6 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational comparative studies) and 4 single-arm studies of freehand devices. There were no statistically significant differences in cancer detection rates for local anaesthetic transperineal prostate (any method) compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.18) (n = 5 randomised controlled trials), as was the case for local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with a freehand device compared to local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (relative risk 1.40, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 2.04) (n = 1 randomised controlled trial). Results of meta-analyses of observational studies were similar. The economic analysis indicated that local anaesthetic transperineal prostate is likely to be cost-effective compared with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate (incremental cost below £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) and less costly and no less effective than general anaesthetic transperineal prostate. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate with a freehand device is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy: incremental cost versus local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate of £743 per quality-adjusted life-year for people with magnetic resonance imaging Likert score of 3 or more at first biopsy. Limitations There is limited evidence for efficacy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. There is comparative evidence for the PrecisionPoint™ Transperineal Access System (BXTAccelyon Ltd, Burnham, UK) but limited or no evidence for the other freehand devices. Evidence for other outcomes is sparse. The cost-effectiveness results are sensitive to uncertainty over cancer detection rates, complication rates and the numbers of core samples taken with the different biopsy methods and the costs of processing them. Conclusions Transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthetic is equally efficient at detecting prostate cancer as transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy under local anaesthetic but it may be better with a freehand device. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate is associated with urinary retention type complications, whereas local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate has a higher infection rate. local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy with a freehand device appears to meet conventional levels of costeffectiveness compared with local anaesthetic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266443. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134220) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 28, No. 60. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
