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
  • [21] Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies vs. magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies: Who are the best candidates?
    Bey, Elsa
    Gaget, Olivier
    Descotes, Jean-Luc
    Franquet, Quentin
    Rambeaud, Jean-Jacques
    Long, Jean-Alexandre
    Fiard, Gaelle
    CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2018, 12 (01): : E10 - E14
  • [22] Transperineal versus transrectal multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion targeted prostate biopsy
    Rabah, Danny
    Al-Taweel, Waleed
    Khan, Farrukh
    Arafa, Mostafa
    Mehmood, Shahbaz
    Mokhtar, Alaa
    Farhat, Karim
    SAUDI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2021, 42 (06) : 649 - 654
  • [23] Targeted multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound-guided (mpMRI/TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy versus systematic random prostate biopsy: A comparative real-life study
    Pham, Trang H. N.
    Schulze-Hagen, Maximilian F.
    Rahnama'i, Mohammad S.
    CANCER REPORTS, 2024, 7 (02)
  • [24] Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion focal cryotherapy of the prostate: A prospective development study
    Valerio, Massimo
    Shah, Taimur Tariq
    Shah, Paras
    Mccartan, Neil
    Emberton, Mark
    Arya, Manit
    Ahmed, Hashim Uddin
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2017, 35 (04) : 150.e1 - 150.e7
  • [25] Comparison of complications rates between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion and systematic TRUS prostatic biopsies
    Queiroz, Marcos R. G.
    Falsarella, Priscila M.
    Mariotti, Guilherme Cayres
    Lemos, Gustavo C.
    Baroni, Ronaldo H.
    Mussi, Thais Caldara
    Garcia, Rodrigo G.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2019, 44 (02) : 732 - 738
  • [26] Detection of Significant Prostate Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Targeted Biopsies-Should Transrectal Ultrasound-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Guided Biopsies Alone be a Standard of Care?
    Delongchamps, Nicolas Barry
    Lefevre, Arnaud
    Bouazza, Naim
    Beuvon, Frederic
    Legman, Paul
    Cornud, Francois
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 193 (04) : 1198 - 1204
  • [27] Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infectious Complications: The PREVENT Randomized Trial
    Hu, Jim C.
    Assel, Melissa
    Allaf, Mohamad E.
    Ehdaie, Behfar
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Cohen, Andrew J.
    Ristau, Benjamin T.
    Green, David A.
    Han, Misop
    Rezaee, Michael E.
    Pavlovich, Christian P.
    Montgomery, Jeffrey S.
    Kowalczyk, Keith J.
    Ross, Ashley E.
    Kundu, Shilajit D.
    Patel, Hiten D.
    Wang, Gerald J.
    Graham, John N.
    Shoag, Jonathan E.
    Ghazi, Ahmed
    Singla, Nirmish
    Gorin, Michael A.
    Schaeffer, Anthony J.
    Schaeffer, Edward M.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2024, 86 (01) : 61 - 68
  • [28] Systematic versus Targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy among Men with Visible Lesions
    Patel, Hiten D.
    Koehne, Elizabeth L.
    Shea, Steven M.
    Fang, Andrew M.
    Gorbonos, Alex
    Quek, Marcus L.
    Flanigan, Robert C.
    Goldberg, Ari
    Rais-Bahrami, Soroush
    Gupta, Gopal N.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 207 (01) : 108 - 116
  • [29] Robot-Assisted Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Petov, Vladislav
    Azilgareeva, Camilla
    Shpikina, Anastasia
    Morozov, Andrey
    Krupinov, German
    Kozlov, Vasiliy
    Singla, Nirmish
    Gomez Rivas, Juan
    Jesus, Moreno-Sierra
    Puliatti, Stefano
    Checcucci, Enrico
    Rodler, Severin
    Belenchon, Ines Rivero
    Kowalewski, Karl-Friedrich
    Veccia, Alessandro
    Mcfarland, Jonathan
    Cacciamani, Giovanni E.
    Taratkin, Mark
    Enikeev, Dmitry
    CANCERS, 2023, 15 (04)
  • [30] Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: Systematic and/or magnetic-resonance imaging-targeted
    Bladou, Franck
    Fogaing, Cora
    Levental, Mark
    Aronson, Samuel
    Alameldin, Mona
    Anidjar, Maurice
    CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2017, 11 (09): : E330 - E337