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
  • [41] Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsies increase the rate of cancer detection in populations with a low incidence of prostate cancer
    Kaushal, Rohit
    Das, Chandan J.
    Singh, Prabhjot
    Dogra, Prem Nath
    Kumar, Rajeev
    INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY, 2019, 60 (03) : 156 - 161
  • [42] Is There an Impact of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Rate? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Uleri, Alessandro
    Baboudjian, Michael
    Tedde, Alessandro
    Gallioli, Andrea
    Long-Depaquit, Thibaut
    Palou, Joan
    Basile, Giuseppe
    Gaya, Josep Maria
    Sanguedolce, Francesco
    Lughezzani, Giovanni
    Rajwa, Pawel
    Pradere, Benjamin
    Roupret, Morgan
    Briganti, Alberto
    Ploussard, Guillaume
    Breda, Alberto
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2023, 6 (06): : 621 - 628
  • [43] Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within-patient comparison
    Hayes, Mitch
    Bassale, Solange
    Chakiryan, Nicholas H.
    Boileau, Luc
    Grassauer, Jacob
    Wagner, Matthew
    Foster, Bryan
    Coakley, Fergus
    Isharwal, Sudhir
    Amling, Christopher L.
    Liu, Jen-Jane
    BJUI COMPASS, 2022, 3 (06): : 443 - 449
  • [44] 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
    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
  • [45] Gleason Score Determination with Transrectal Ultrasound-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsies-Are We Gaining in Accuracy?
    Lanz, Camille
    Cornud, Francois
    Beuvon, Frederic
    Lefevre, Arnaud
    Legmann, Paul
    Zerbib, Marc
    Delongchamps, Nicolas Barry
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 195 (01) : 88 - 93
  • [46] COMPARISON OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND FUSION PROSTATE BIOPSY WITH STANDARD SYSTEMATIC BIOPSY: A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE
    Koparal, Murat Yavuz
    Bulut, Ender Cem
    Cetin, Serhat
    Cosar, Ugur
    Budak, Firat Caglar
    Ucar, Murat
    Tokgoz, Nil
    Senturk, Aykut Bugra
    Sen, Ilker
    Sozen, Tevfik Sinan
    ARCHIVOS ESPANOLES DE UROLOGIA, 2021, 74 (08): : 790 - 795
  • [47] A Prospective Comparison of Selective Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion-Targeted and Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsies for Detecting Prostate Cancer in Men Undergoing Repeated Biopsies
    Boesen, Lars
    Norgaard, Nis
    Logager, Vibeke
    Balslev, Ingegerd
    Thomsen, Henrik S.
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2017, 99 (04) : 384 - 391
  • [48] Cost-Effectiveness of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review
    Rezapour, Aziz
    Alipour, Vahid
    Moradi, Najmeh
    Arabloo, Jalal
    VALUE IN HEALTH REGIONAL ISSUES, 2022, 30 : 31 - 38
  • [49] Comparison of systematic randomized 12-core transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-targeted prostate biopsy
    Song, Byeongdo
    Hwang, Sung Il
    Lee, Hak Jong
    Jeong, Seong Jin
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Lee, Sangchul
    MEDICINE, 2022, 101 (40) : E30821
  • [50] Learning curve for fusion magnetic resonance imaging targeted prostate biopsy and three-dimensional transrectal ultrasonography segmentation
    Lenfant, Louis
    Beitone, Clement
    Troccaz, Jocelyne
    Roupret, Morgan
    Seisen, Thomas
    Voros, Sandrine
    Mozer, Pierre C.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2024, 133 (06) : 709 - 716