Sungmin Woo1, Chong Hyun Suh2, James A Eastham3, Michael J Zelefsky4, Michael J Morris5, Wassim Abida5, Howard I Scher5, Robert Sidlow6, Anton S Becker7, Andreas G Wibmer7, Hedvig Hricak7, Hebert Alberto Vargas7. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: j_crew7@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. Integrative Medicine Service, Division of Survivorship and Supportive Care, Bendheim Center for Integrative Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Recent studies suggested that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) followed by targeted biopsy ("MRI-stratified pathway") detects more clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) than the systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) pathway, but controversy persists. Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were recently published, enabling generation of higher-level evidence to evaluate this hypothesis. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the detection rates of csPCa in the MRI-stratified pathway and the systematic TRUS-Bx pathway in patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to March 18, 2019. RCTs reporting csPCa detection rates of both pathways in patients with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer were included. Relative csPCa detection rates of the MRI-stratified pathway were pooled using random-effect model. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. A comparison of detection rates of clinically insignificant PCa (cisPCa) and any PCa was also performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nine RCTs (2908 patients) were included. The MRI-stratified pathway detected more csPCa than the TRUS-Bx pathway (relative detection rate 1.45 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.09-1.92] for all patients, and 1.42 [95% CI 1.02-1.97] and 1.60 [95% CI 1.01-2.54] for biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy patients, respectively). Detection rates were not significantly different between pathways for cisPCa (0.89 [95% CI 0.49-1.62]), but higher in the MRI-stratified pathway for the detection of any PCa (1.39 [95% CI 1.05-1.84]). CONCLUSIONS: The MRI-stratified pathway detected more csPCa than the systematic TRUS-guided biopsy pathway in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa, for both biopsy-naïve patients and those with prior negative biopsy. The detection rate of any PCa was higher in the MRI-stratified pathway, but not significantly different from that of cisPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our meta-analysis of clinical trials shows that the magnetic resonance imaging-stratified pathway detects more clinically significant prostate cancers than the transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy pathway in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer.
CONTEXT: Recent studies suggested that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) followed by targeted biopsy ("MRI-stratified pathway") detects more clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) than the systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) pathway, but controversy persists. Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were recently published, enabling generation of higher-level evidence to evaluate this hypothesis. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the detection rates of csPCa in the MRI-stratified pathway and the systematic TRUS-Bx pathway in patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to March 18, 2019. RCTs reporting csPCa detection rates of both pathways in patients with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer were included. Relative csPCa detection rates of the MRI-stratified pathway were pooled using random-effect model. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. A comparison of detection rates of clinically insignificant PCa (cisPCa) and any PCa was also performed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nine RCTs (2908 patients) were included. The MRI-stratified pathway detected more csPCa than the TRUS-Bx pathway (relative detection rate 1.45 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.09-1.92] for all patients, and 1.42 [95% CI 1.02-1.97] and 1.60 [95% CI 1.01-2.54] for biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy patients, respectively). Detection rates were not significantly different between pathways for cisPCa (0.89 [95% CI 0.49-1.62]), but higher in the MRI-stratified pathway for the detection of any PCa (1.39 [95% CI 1.05-1.84]). CONCLUSIONS: The MRI-stratified pathway detected more csPCa than the systematic TRUS-guided biopsy pathway in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa, for both biopsy-naïve patients and those with prior negative biopsy. The detection rate of any PCa was higher in the MRI-stratified pathway, but not significantly different from that of cisPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our meta-analysis of clinical trials shows that the magnetic resonance imaging-stratified pathway detects more clinically significant prostate cancers than the transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy pathway in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer.
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Ines Nikolovski; Joshua Chaim; Yulia Lakhman; Robert A Lefkowitz; Evis Sala; Sigrid V Carlsson; Samson W Fine; Michael W Kattan; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anton S Becker; Julian Kirchner; Thomas Sartoretti; Soleen Ghafoor; Sungmin Woo; Chong Hyun Suh; Joseph P Erinjeri; Hedvig Hricak; H Alberto Vargas Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-03-17
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Michael W Kattan; Francesco Alessandrino; Alexander D J Baur; Lars Boesen; Felipe Boschini Franco; David Bonekamp; Riccardo Campa; Hannes Cash; Violeta Catalá; Sebastien Crouzet; Sounil Dinnoo; James Eastham; Fiona M Fennessy; Kamyar Ghabili; Markus Hohenfellner; Angelique W Levi; Xinge Ji; Vibeke Løgager; Daniel J Margolis; Paul C Moldovan; Valeria Panebianco; Tobias Penzkofer; Philippe Puech; Jan Philipp Radtke; Olivier Rouvière; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Preston C Sprenkle; Clare M Tempany; Joan C Vilanova; Jeffrey Weinreb; Hedvig Hricak; Amita Shukla-Dave Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 6.639