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
  • [31] Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy and Pretherapeutic Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment: a Systematic Review
    Diamand, R.
    Mjaess, G.
    Ploussard, G.
    Fiard, G.
    Oderda, M.
    Lefebvre, Y.
    Sirtaine, N.
    Roumeguere, T.
    Peltier, A.
    Albisinni, S.
    PROGRES EN UROLOGIE, 2022, 32 (06):
  • [32] ROUTINE SYSTEMATIC PROSTATE BIOPSIES NOT REPLACED BY MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-TARGETED BIOPSY
    Gomez-Ortiz, David
    Garza-Gangemi, Adrian M.
    Oropeza-Aguilar, Mariano
    Rangel-Suarez, Sergio
    Espinosa-Cruz, Veronica
    Villegas-Hernandez, Antonio C.
    Martinez-Martinez, Ricardo
    Castillejos-Molina, Ricardo A.
    REVISTA DE INVESTIGACION CLINICA-CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL INVESTIGATION, 2022, 74 (04): : 212 - 218
  • [33] Prostate cancer detection using magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy: A retrospective cohort study
    Pratihar, Sarbartha Kumar
    Khanna, Ashish
    Vasudeo, Vivek
    Gupta, Rahul
    Saurabh, Nikhil
    Kumar, Bhuwan
    Ali, Mujahid
    Akotkar, Shravika S.
    Rawal, Sudhir Kumar
    Singh, Amitabh
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 39 (04) : 297 - 302
  • [34] Confirmatory biopsy of men under active surveillance: extended versus saturation versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy
    Pepe, Pietro
    Cimino, Sebastiano
    Garufi, Antonio
    Priolo, Giandomenico
    Russo, Giorgio Ivan
    Giardina, Raimondo
    Reale, Giulio
    Pennisi, Michele
    Morgia, Giuseppe
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 51 (04) : 260 - 263
  • [35] Risk-based Patient Selection for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy after Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Random Biopsy Avoids Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans
    Alberts, Arnout R.
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    Bokhorst, Leonard P.
    van Leenders, Geert J.
    Bangma, Chris H.
    Roobol, Monique J.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (06) : 1129 - 1134
  • [36] Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Drost, Frank-Jan H.
    Osses, Daniel
    Nieboer, Daan
    Bangma, Chris H.
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2020, 77 (01) : 78 - 94
  • [37] Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Final Results of the Randomized PERFECT trial (CCAFU-PR1)
    Ploussard, Guillaume
    Barret, Eric
    Fiard, Gaelle
    Lenfant, Louis
    Malavaud, Bernard
    Giannarini, Gianluca
    Almeras, Christophe
    Aziza, Richard
    Renard-Penna, Raphaele
    Descotes, Jean-Luc
    Beauval, Jean-Baptiste
    Salin, Ambroise
    Roupret, Morgan
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2024, 7 (05): : 1080 - 1087
  • [38] Prospective Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided In-bore Prostate Biopsy versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy Naive Men with Elevated Prostate Specific Antigen
    Quentin, Michael
    Blondin, Dirk
    Arsov, Christian
    Schimmoeller, Lars
    Hiester, Andreas
    Godehardt, Erhard
    Albers, Peter
    Antoch, Gerald
    Rabenalt, Robert
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 192 (05) : 1374 - 1379
  • [39] Should Hypoechoic Lesions on Transrectal Ultrasound Be Sampled During Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy?
    Shakir, Nabeel A.
    Siddiqui, M. Minhaj
    George, Arvin K.
    Kongnyuy, Michael
    Ho, Richard
    Fascelli, Michele
    Merino, Maria J.
    Turkbey, Baris
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    UROLOGY, 2017, 105 : 113 - 117
  • [40] Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review
    Valerio, Massimo
    Donaldson, Ian
    Emberton, Mark
    Ehdaie, Behfar
    Hadaschik, Boris A.
    Marks, Leonard S.
    Mozer, Pierre
    Rastinehad, Ardeshir R.
    Ahmed, Hashim U.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2015, 68 (01) : 8 - 19