Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique?

被引:346
作者
Wegelin, Olivier [1 ]
van Melick, Harm H. E. [1 ]
Hooft, Lotty [2 ]
Bosch, J. L. H. Ruud [3 ]
Reitsma, Hans B. [4 ]
Barentsz, Jelle O. [5 ]
Somford, Diederik M. [6 ]
机构
[1] St Antonius Hosp, Dept Urol, Koekoekslaan 1,POB 2500, NL-3430 EM Nieuwegein, Netherlands
[2] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Ctr Hlth Sci & Primary Care, Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Urol, Utrecht, Netherlands
[4] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Epidemiol, Julius Ctr Hlth Sci & Primary Care, Utrecht, Netherlands
[5] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[6] Canisius Wilhelmina Hosp, Dept Urol, Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
Diagnosis; Image guided biopsy; Meta-analysis; MRI; Prostate cancer; Systematic review; RADS SCORING SYSTEM; MRI-GUIDED BIOPSY; CANCER-DETECTION; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI; NEGATIVE BIOPSY; TRANSPERINEAL; DIAGNOSIS; PSA; MEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context: The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies (MRI-GB) has changed the paradigm concerning prostate biopsies. Three techniques of MRI-GB are available: (1) in-bore MRI target biopsy (MRI-TB), (2) MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion (FUS-TB), and (3) cognitive registration (COG-TB). Objective: To evaluate whether MRI-GB has increased detection rates of (clinically significant) prostate cancer (PCa) compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) in patients at risk for PCa, and which technique of MRI-GB has the highest detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa. Evidence acquisition: We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist and START recommendations. The initial search identified 2562 studies and 43 were included in the meta-analysis. Evidence synthesis: Among the included studies 11 used MRI-TB, 17 used FUS-TB, 11 used COG-TB, and four used a combination of techniques. In 34 studies concurrent TRUS-GB was performed. There was no significant difference between MRI-GB (all techniques combined) and TRUS-GB for overall PCa detection (relative risk [RR] 0.97 [0.90-1.07]). MRI-GB had higher detection rates of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) compared with TRUS-GB (RR 1.16 [1.02-1.32]), and a lower yield of insignificant PCa (RR 0.47 [0.35-0.63]). There was a significant advantage (p = 0.02) of MRI-TB compared with COG-TB for overall PCa detection. For overall PCa detection there was no significant advantage of MRI-TB compared with FUS-TB (p = 0.13), and neither for FUS-TB compared with COG-TB (p = 0.11). For csPCa detection there was no significant advantage of any one technique of MRI-GB. The impact of lesion characteristics such as size and localisation could not be assessed. Conclusions: MRI-GB had similar overall PCa detection rates compared with TRUS-GB, increased rates of csPCa, and decreased rates of insignificant PCa. MRI-TB has a superior overall PCa detection compared with COG-TB. FUS-TB and MRI-TB appear to have similar detection rates. Head-to-head comparisons of MRI-GB techniques are limited and are needed to confirm our findings. Patient summary: Our review shows that magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy detects more clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) and less insignificant PCa compared with systematic biopsy in men at risk for PCa. (C) 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:517 / 531
页数:15
相关论文
共 77 条
[1]   Characterizing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Template Prostate Mapping Biopsy [J].
Ahmed, Hashim Uddin ;
Hu, Yipeng ;
Carter, Tim ;
Arumainayagam, Nimalan ;
Lecornet, Emilie ;
Freeman, Alex ;
Hawkes, David ;
Barratt, Dean C. ;
Emberton, Mark .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 186 (02) :458-464
[2]  
Altman D., 2013, Statistics with Confidence: Confidence Intervals and Statistical Guidelines, DOI DOI 10.1002/SIM.4780090319
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2011, UROL INT
[4]   Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988: Analysis of the European Cancer Observatory [J].
Arnold, Melina ;
Karim-Kos, Henrike E. ;
Coebergh, Jan Willem ;
Byrnes, Graham ;
Antilla, Ahti ;
Ferlay, Jacques ;
Renehan, Andrew G. ;
Forman, David ;
Soerjomataram, Isabelle .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2015, 51 (09) :1164-1187
[5]  
Arsov C, 2012, ANTICANCER RES, V32, P1087
[6]   Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use [J].
Barentsz, Jelle O. ;
Weinreb, Jeffrey C. ;
Verma, Sadhna ;
Thoeny, Harriet C. ;
Tempany, Clare M. ;
Shtern, Faina ;
Padhani, Anwar R. ;
Margolis, Daniel ;
Macura, Katarzyna J. ;
Haider, Masoom A. ;
Cornud, Francois ;
Choyke, Peter L. .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (01) :41-49
[7]   ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 [J].
Barentsz, Jelle O. ;
Richenberg, Jonathan ;
Clements, Richard ;
Choyke, Peter ;
Verma, Sadhna ;
Villeirs, Geert ;
Rouviere, Olivier ;
Logager, Vibeke ;
Futterer, Jurgen J. .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2012, 22 (04) :746-757
[8]   Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors - A contemporary analysis [J].
Bastian, PJ ;
Mangold, LA ;
Epstein, JI ;
Partin, AW .
CANCER, 2004, 101 (09) :2001-2005
[9]   Early experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies under visual transrectal ultrasound guidance in patients suspicious for prostate cancer undergoing repeated biopsy [J].
Boesen, Lars ;
Noergaard, Nis ;
Chabanova, Elizaveta ;
Logager, Vibeke ;
Balslev, Ingegerd ;
Mikines, Kari ;
Thomsen, Henrik S. .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 49 (01) :25-34
[10]  
Booth A, 2006, J MED LIBR ASSOC, V94, P421