Prostate cancer detection and complications of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive registration, software-assisted image fusion or in-bore guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

被引:9
作者
Falagario, Ugo Giovanni [1 ,2 ]
Pellegrino, Francesco [3 ,4 ]
Fanelli, Antonio [2 ]
Guzzi, Francesco [2 ]
Bartoletti, Riccardo [5 ]
Cash, Hannes [6 ,7 ]
Pavlovich, Christian [8 ,9 ]
Emberton, Mark [10 ,11 ]
Carrieri, Giuseppe [2 ]
Giannarini, Gianluca [12 ]
机构
[1] Karolinska Inst, Dept Mol Med & Surg, Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Univ Foggia, Dept Urol & Kidney Transplantat, Foggia, Italy
[3] IRCCS San Raffaele Hosp, Urol Res Inst, Unit Urol, Div Oncol,Soldera Prostate Canc Lab, Milan, Italy
[4] Univ Vita Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
[5] Univ Pisa, Dept Translat Res & New Technol Med & Surg, Pisa, Italy
[6] Otto von Guericke Univ, Dept Urol, Magdeburg, Germany
[7] PROURO, Berlin, Germany
[8] Johns Hopkins Univ, James Buchanan Brady Urol Inst, Baltimore, MD USA
[9] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Dept Urol, Baltimore, MD USA
[10] UCL, Div Surg & Intervent Sci, London, England
[11] Univ Coll London Hosp, Dept Urol, London, England
[12] Santa Maria Della Misericordia Univ Hosp, Urol Unit, Udine, Italy
关键词
ULTRASOUND FUSION; TRANSPERINEAL; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1038/s41391-024-00827-x
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background Three primary strategies for MRI-targeted biopsies (TB) are available: Cognitive TB (COG-TB), MRI-US Fusion TB (FUS-TB), and In Bore TB (IB-TB). Despite nearly a decade of practice, a consensus on the preferred approach is lacking, with previous studies showing comparable PCa detection rates among the three methods.Methods We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2014 to 2023, to identify studies comparing at least two of the three methods and reporting clinically significant PCa (csPCa) detection rates. The primary and secondary outcomes were to compare the csPCa and insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa, ISUP GG 1) detection rates between TB techniques. The tertiary outcome was to compare the complication rate between TB techniques. Detection rates were pooled using random-effect models. Planned sensitivity analyses included subgroup analysis according to the definition of csPCa and positive MRI, previous biopsy status, biopsy route, prostate volume, and lesion characteristics.Results A total of twenty studies, involving 4928 patients, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis unveiled comparable csPCa detection rates among COG-TB (0.37), FUS-TB (0.39), and IB-TB (0.47). iPCa detection rate was also similar between TB techniques (COG-TB: 0.12, FUS-TB: 0.17, IB-TB: 0.18). All preplanned sensitivity analyses were conducted and did not show any statistically significant difference in the detection of csPCa between TB methods. Complication rates, however, were infrequently reported, and when available, no statistically significant differences were observed among the techniques.Conclusions This unique study, exclusively focusing on comparative research, indicates no significant differences in csPCa and iPCa detection rates between COG-TB, FUS-TB, and IB-TB. Decisions between these techniques may extend beyond diagnostic accuracy, considering factors such as resource availability and operator preferences. Well-designed prospective studies are warranted to refine our understanding of the optimal approach for TB in diverse clinical scenarios.
引用
收藏
页码:270 / 279
页数:10
相关论文
共 44 条
[1]   MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis [J].
Ahdoot, Michael ;
Wilbur, Andrew R. ;
Reese, Sarah E. ;
Lebastchi, Amir H. ;
Mehralivand, Sherif ;
Gomella, Patrick T. ;
Bloom, Jonathan ;
Gurram, Sandeep ;
Siddiqui, Minhaj ;
Pinsky, Paul ;
Parnes, Howard ;
Linehan, W. Marston ;
Merino, Maria ;
Choyke, Peter L. ;
Shih, Joanna H. ;
Turkbey, Baris ;
Wood, Bradford J. ;
Pinto, Peter A. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2020, 382 (10) :917-928
[2]   Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study [J].
Ahmed, Hashim U. ;
Bosaily, Ahmed El-Shater ;
Brown, Louise C. ;
Gabe, Rhian ;
Kaplan, Richard ;
Parmar, Mahesh K. ;
Collaco-Moraes, Yolanda ;
Ward, Katie ;
Hindley, Richard G. ;
Freeman, Alex ;
Kirkham, Alex P. ;
Oldroyd, Robert ;
Parker, Chris ;
Emberton, Mark .
LANCET, 2017, 389 (10071) :815-822
[3]   Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-guided In-bore Biopsy to MRI-ultrasound Fusion and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies [J].
Arsov, Christian ;
Rabenalt, Robert ;
Blondin, Dirk ;
Quentin, Michael ;
Hiester, Andreas ;
Godehardt, Erhard ;
Gabbert, Helmut E. ;
Becker, Nikolaus ;
Antoch, Gerald ;
Albers, Peter ;
Schimmoeller, Lars .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2015, 68 (04) :713-720
[4]   Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Bass, E. J. ;
Pantovic, A. ;
Connor, M. J. ;
Loeb, S. ;
Rastinehad, A. R. ;
Winkler, M. ;
Gabe, Rhian ;
Ahmed, H. U. .
PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2022, 25 (02) :174-179
[5]   Artificial intelligence applications in prostate cancer [J].
Baydoun, Atallah ;
Jia, Angela Y. Y. ;
Zaorsky, Nicholas G. G. ;
Kashani, Rojano ;
Rao, Santosh ;
Shoag, Jonathan E. E. ;
Vince, Randy A. A. ;
Bittencourt, Leonardo Kayat ;
Zuhour, Raed ;
Price, Alex T. T. ;
Arsenault, Theodore H. H. ;
Spratt, Daniel E. E. .
PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2024, 27 (01) :37-45
[6]   Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided In-bore and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsies: An Adjusted Comparison of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Rate [J].
Costa, Daniel N. ;
Goldberg, Kenneth ;
de Leon, Alberto Diaz ;
Lotan, Yair ;
Xi, Yin ;
Aziz, Muhammad ;
Freifeld, Yuval ;
Margulis, Vitaly ;
Raj, Ganesh ;
Roehrborn, Claus G. ;
Hornberger, Brad ;
Desai, Neil ;
Bagrodia, Aditya ;
Francis, Franto ;
Pedrosa, Ivan ;
Cadeddu, Jeffrey A. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2019, 2 (04) :397-404
[7]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188
[8]   Classification of surgical complications - A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey [J].
Dindo, D ;
Demartines, N ;
Clavien, PA .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 240 (02) :205-213
[9]   Added value of systematic biopsy in men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing biparametric MRI-targeted biopsy: multi-institutional external validation study [J].
Falagario, Ugo ;
Jambor, Ivan ;
Taimen, Pekka ;
Syvanen, Kari T. ;
Kahkonen, Esa ;
Merisaari, Harri ;
Perez, Ileana Montoya ;
Knaapila, Juha ;
Steiner, Aida ;
Verho, Janne ;
Tewari, Ashutosh ;
Aronen, Hannu J. ;
Carrieri, Giuseppe ;
Bostrom, Peter J. ;
Ettala, Otto .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 39 (06) :1879-1887
[10]   Results of fusion prostate biopsy comparing with cognitive and systematic biopsy [J].
Guerra-Lacambra, Marta ;
Yanez-Castillo, Yaiza ;
Folgueral-Corral, Mar ;
Melgarejo-Segura, Maria Teresa ;
Cano-Garcia, Maria del Carmen ;
Sanchez-Tamayo, Francisco Javier ;
Martin-Rodriguez, Jose Luis ;
Arrabal-Polo, Miguel Angel ;
Arrabal-Martin, Miguel .
JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 149 (16) :15085-15090