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:338
|
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 50 条
  • [1] Comparative Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Versus In-bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy
    Ramos, Francisco
    Korets, Ruslan
    Fleishman, Aaron
    Kaul, Sumedh
    Johnson, Michael
    Wei, Jesse L.
    Olumi, Aria F.
    Tsai, Leo L.
    Gershman, Boris
    UROLOGY, 2023, 171 : 164 - 171
  • [2] 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
    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
  • [3] Elastic Versus Rigid Image Registration in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Venderink, Wulphert
    de Rooij, Maarten
    Sedelaar, J. P. Michiel
    Huisman, Henkjan J.
    Futterer, Jurgen J.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2018, 4 (02): : 219 - 227
  • [4] Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound image fusion guidance of prostate biopsies: current status, challenges and future perspectives
    Boesen, Lars
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 53 (2-3) : 89 - 96
  • [5] Are Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Targeted Biopsies Noninferior to Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Systematic Biopsies for the Detection of Prostate Cancer?
    Delongchamps, Nicolas Barry
    Portalez, Daniel
    Bruguiere, Eric
    Rouviere, Olivier
    Malavaud, Bernard
    Mozer, Pierre
    Fiard, Gaelle
    Cornud, Francois
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 196 (04) : 1069 - 1075
  • [6] Results of a comparative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted versus three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsies: Size does matter
    Peltier, Alexandre
    Aoun, Fouad
    Albisinni, Simone
    Marcelis, Quentin
    Ledinh, Dam
    Paesmans, Marianne
    Lemort, Marc
    van Velthoven, Roland
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 50 (03) : 144 - 148
  • [7] Histology results of systematic prostate biopsies by in-bore magnetic resonance imaging vs. transrectal ultrasound
    Lazarovich, Alon
    Raviv, Gil
    Laitman, Yael
    Portnoy, Orith
    Raz, Orit
    Dotan, Zohar A.
    Ramon, Jacob
    Rosenzweig, Barak
    CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2021, 15 (05): : E244 - E247
  • [8] Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Kasivisvanathan, Veeru
    Stabile, Armando
    Neves, Joana B.
    Giganti, Francesco
    Valerio, Massimo
    Shanmugabavan, Yaalini
    Clement, Keiran D.
    Sarkar, Debashis
    Philippou, Yiannis
    Thurtle, David
    Deeks, Jonathan
    Emberton, Mark
    Takwoingi, Yemisi
    Moore, Caroline M.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2019, 76 (03) : 284 - 303
  • [9] Is There Still a Need for Repeated Systematic Biopsies in Patients with Previous Negative Biopsies in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies of the Prostate?
    Exterkate, Leonie
    Wegelin, Olivier
    Barentsz, Jelle O.
    van der Leest, Marloes G.
    Kummer, J. Alain
    Vreuls, Willem
    de Bruin, Peter C.
    Bosch, J. L. H. Ruud
    van Melick, Harm H. E.
    Somford, Diederik M.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2020, 3 (02): : 216 - 223
  • [10] Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsy-A Systematic Review
    Rai, Bhavan Prasad
    Mayerhofer, Christoph
    Somani, Bhaskar Kumar
    Kallidonis, Panagiotis
    Nagele, Udo
    Tokas, Theodoros
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2021, 4 (06): : 904 - 913