Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 18, 2026
Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Using a Cone-shaped Double-hole Method with Dual-plane Probe Guidance
Published on: June 6, 2025
Transrectal versus transperineal 14-core prostate biopsy in detection of prostate cancer: a comparative evaluation at
Maria Angela Cerruto1, Fabio Vianello, Carolina D'Elia
1Department of Surgery, Urology Clinic, AOUI Verona. karolinedelia@gmail.com.
Background:
The ideal bioptic strategy for CaP detection is still to be completely defined. The aim of our study is to compare transperineal (TP) and transrectal (TR) approaches, in a 14-core initial prostate biopsy for CaP detection.
Material And Methods:
A prospective controlled study was conducted enrolling 108 consecutive patients with a PSA level greater than 4 ng/mL and/or an abnormal DRE. TR versus TP 14-core initial prostatic biopsies were performed on 54 and 54 patients, respectively, with a randomisation ratio of 1:1.
Results:
The cancer detection rates were 46.29 (25 out of 54 patients), and 44.44% (24 out of 54 patients), respectively, using the TR or the TP approach (p = 0.846). The overall cancer core rate was significantly higher when the TP approach was used: 21.43% (162 out of 756 cores) and 16.79% (127 out of 756 cores), with the TP and the TR approach, respectively (p = 0.022). The cores were significantly longer performing TP approach: at the site "1" (14.92 versus 12.97 mm, p = 0.02); at "5" (15.53 versus 13.69 mm, p = 0.037); at "7" (15.06 versus 12.86 mm, p = 0.001); at "9" (14.92 versus 13.38 mm, p = 0.038); at "11" (16.32 versus 12.31 mm, p = 0.0001); at "12" (15.14 versus 12.19 mm, p = 0.0001); at "13" (17.49 versus 13.98 mm, p = 0.0001); at "14" (16.77 versus 13.36 mm, p = 0.0001). As to the biopsy related pain, the mean pain level perceived by patients during the TR approach was 1.56 ± 1.73 versus 1.42 ± 1.37 registered during TP approach (p = 0.591).
Conclusions:
No significant differences were found in cancer detection rate, cancer core rate between TP and TR approaches for prostatic biopsy. Even in terms of complication rate or pain level, it cannot be concluded that one procedure is superior to the other one. Apparently, strictly following our protocol, TP approach seems to offer a better sampling at the level of the apex and the TZ, however without adding any significant advantage in terms of overall cancer detection rate.
