ČESKÁ UROLOGIE / CZECH UROLOGY – 2 / 2021

104 PŘEHLEDOVÝ ČLÁNEK Ces Urol 2021; 25(1): 94–105 28. Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A, et al. Trans-rectal Versus Trans-Perineal Saturation Rebiopsy of the Prostate: Is There a Difference in Cancer Detection Rate? Urology 2011; 77(4): 921–925 29. Di Franco CA, Jallous H, Porru D, et al. A retrospective comparison between transrectal and transpe‑ rineal prostate biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer Arch Ital Urol Androl Organo Uff Soc Ital Ecogr Urol E Nefrol 2017; 89(1): 55–59 30. Marra G, Eldred-Evans D, Challacombe B, et al. Pathological Concordance between Prostate Biopsies and Radical Prostatectomy Using Transperineal Sector Mapping Biopsies: Validation and Comparison with Transrectal Biopsies Urol Int 2017; 99(2): 168–176 31. Scott S, Samaratunga H, Chabert C, Breckenridge M, Gianduzzo T. Is transperineal prostate biopsy more accurate than transrectal biopsy in determining final Gleason score and clinical risk category? A com‑ parative analysis BJU Int 2015; 116(Suppl 3): 26–30 32. Shen P-F, Zhu Y-C, Wei W-R, et al. The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Asian J Androl 2012; 14(2): 310–315 33. Nelson AW, Harvey RC, Parker RA, et al. Repeat prostate biopsy strategies after initial negative bio‑ psy: meta-regression comparing cancer detection of transperineal, transrectal saturation and MRI guided biopsy PLoS One 2013; 8(2): e57480 34. Zhang Q, WangW, Zhang B, et al. Comparison of free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy with transperineal 12-core systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a single-center prospective study in China Int Urol Nephrol [Internet] 2016 Dec 22 Available from: http://dx doi org/101007/ s11255-016-1484-8 35. Miah S, Hosking-Jervis F, Connor MJ, et al. A Multicentre Analysis of the Detection of Clinically Signifi‑ cant Prostate Cancer Following Transperineal Image-fusion Targeted and Nontargeted Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men at Risk Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 3(3): 262–269 36. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance J Urol 2015; 193(1): 87–94 37. Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy BJU Int [Internet] 2016 Nov 10 Available from: http://dx doi org/101111/bju13711 38. Borkowetz A, Hadaschik B, Platzek I, et al. Prospective comparison of transperineal magnetic reso‑ nance imaging/ultrasonography fusion biopsy and transrectal systematic biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients BJU Int 2018; 121(1): 53–60 39. Loy LM, Lim GH, Leow JJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance ima‑ ging and ultrasound guided fusion biopsy of prostate for cancer detection – comparing transrectal with transperineal approaches Urol Oncol 2020; 38(8): 650–660 40. Khoo CC, Eldred-Evans D, Peters M, et al. A Comparison of Prostate Cancer Detection between Vi‑ sual Estimation (Cognitive Registration) and Image Fusion (Software Registration) Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy J Urol 2020; Nov 18; 101097JU0000000000001476 41. Meyer AR, Mamawala M, Winoker JS, et al. Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Improves the Detec‑ tion of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer among Men on Active Surveillance J Urol 2020; Dec 1;101097JU0000000000001523 42. Xue J, Qin Z, Cai H, et al. Comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy for detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis Oncotarget 2017; 8(14): 23322–23336 43. Guo L-H, Wu R, Xu H-X, et al. Comparison between Ultrasound Guided Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Trial Sci Rep 2015; 5(1): 16089