Olivier Wegelin1, Harm H E van Melick2, Lotty Hooft3, J L H Ruud Bosch4, Hans B Reitsma5, Jelle O Barentsz6, Diederik M Somford7. 1. Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: o.wegelin@antoniusziekenhuis.nl. 2. Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Urology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Christian Herz; Kyle MacNeil; Peter A Behringer; Junichi Tokuda; Alireza Mehrtash; Parvin Mousavi; Ron Kikinis; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Kemal Tuncali; Andriy Fedorov Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Amr Mahran; Kirtishri Mishra; Laura Bukavina; Fredrick Schumacher; Anna Quian; Christina Buzzy; Carvell T Nguyen; Vikas Gulani; Lee E Ponsky Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Niklas Westhoff; Henning Haumann; Maximilian Christian Kriegmair; Jost von Hardenberg; Johannes Budjan; Stefan Porubsky; Maurice Stephan Michel; Patrick Honeck; Manuel Ritter Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Camila Lopes Vendrami; Robert J McCarthy; Argha Chatterjee; David Casalino; Edward M Schaeffer; William J Catalona; Frank H Miller Journal: Urology Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Susan John; Steven Cooper; Rodney H Breau; Trevor A Flood; Ilias Cagiannos; Luke T Lavallee; Christopher Morash; Joseph O'sullivan; Nicola Schieda Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 1.862