PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 2, 2026Biomedicines0 citationsOpen Access

Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy in the MRI-Targeted Era: A Contemporary Narrative Review

View Full Paper
SLSilviu LatcuFPFlaviu Lucian PetricaDNDorin Novacescu

Key Points

  • This review examines the benefits and drawbacks of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy techniques.
  • Narrative review of literature comparing transperineal and transrectal biopsy outcomes.
  • Analysis of cancer detection rates and procedure-related complications across studies.
  • Consideration of MRI-targeted pathways and historical practices.
  • Transperineal biopsy shows an advantage in sampling anterior and apical tumors.
  • Both routes demonstrate similar detection rates for clinically significant cancer (ISUP grade group ≥ 2).
  • Transperineal approach significantly reduces infectious complications compared to transrectal.

Abstract

Prostate biopsy is among the most frequently performed diagnostic procedures in men, and two shifts have reshaped it over the past decade: the incorporation of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with targeted sampling, and migration from the transrectal to the transperineal route. Because these changes are usually adopted together, the practical choice facing many units is between a contemporary transperineal MRI-targeted pathway and the historical transrectal systematic one. This narrative review weights cancer detection, procedure-related harms, and implementation approximately equally, drawing on evidence that isolates route from targeting wherever possible. Across randomized trials and meta-analyses, the two pathways achieve broadly comparable detection of clinically significant cancer (ISUP grade group ≥ 2), although the transperineal route samples anterior and apical tumors more effectively and the largest randomized comparison reported a modest transperineal advantage. The principal transperineal benefit is a marked reduction in infectious complications, enabling reduced antibiotic prophylaxis and improved stewardship; its main cost is greater procedural discomfort. We review mpMRI and PI-RADS with illustrative examples, fusion technique, cost-effectiveness, special populations, emerging adjuncts, and divergent guidelines, concluding that route and targeting decisions are best individualized, with infection risk and lesion location dominant.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Latcu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a6eeae61b0468a7eeab3909https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines14081723
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper