Literature DB >> 31281065

Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy May Perform Better Than Transrectal Route in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Xiang Tu1, Zhenhua Liu1, Tiancong Chang2, Shi Qiu3, He Xu4, Yige Bao1, Lu Yang5, Qiang Wei6.   

Abstract

The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy by using the transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) route in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) remains to be revealed. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library up to April 2019 was conducted. We pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for csPCa detected by TP and TR MRI-targeted biopsy. The relative sensitivity (or risk ratio) between TP and TR route was synthesized. We also pooled the diagnostic sensitivity of either approach using the combined biopsy results as the reference standard. A total of 328 patients with positive multiparametric MRI underwent TP MRI-targeted biopsy, and 315 patients underwent TR MRI-targeted biopsy. The TP route detected more csPCa, with a detection rate of 62.2% (204/328) compared to 41.3% (130/315) for the TR route (odds ratio = 2.37; 95% CI, 1.71-3.26). After adjusting for differences in cancer prevalence, TP MRI-targeted biopsy detected 91.3% (105/115) of csPCa compared to 72.2% (83/115) by the TR route (risk ratio = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.54). The pooled diagnostic sensitivity of the TP route (86%; 95% CI, 77-96) was better than the TR route (73%, 62-88%). The TR approach missed more csPCa located at the anterior zone of the prostate (20 vs. 3). The TP route performed better than the TR route in MRI-targeted biopsy, especially in detecting csPCa located at the anterior prostate. More large prospective randomized or head-to-head comparison studies comparing the two approaches are warranted.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnosis; Image-guided biopsy; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Saturation prostate biopsy; Targeted biopsy

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31281065     DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer        ISSN: 1558-7673            Impact factor:   2.872


  8 in total

1.  Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within-patient comparison.

Authors:  Mitch Hayes; Solange Bassale; Nicholas H Chakiryan; Luc Boileau; Jacob Grassauer; Matthew Wagner; Bryan Foster; Fergus Coakley; Sudhir Isharwal; Christopher L Amling; Jen-Jane Liu
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2022-06-05

Review 2.  Rationale and protocol for randomized study of transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy efficacy and complications (ProBE-PC study).

Authors:  Badar M Mian; Ronald P Kaufman; Hugh A G Fisher
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 5.554

3.  What level of evidence will it take to move towards widespread adoption of transperineal prostate biopsy in the USA?

Authors:  Sunil H Patel; Christian P Pavlovich; Jared S Winoker
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 5.554

4.  A Nomogram Based on a Multiparametric Ultrasound Radiomics Model for Discrimination Between Malignant and Benign Prostate Lesions.

Authors:  Lei Liang; Xin Zhi; Ya Sun; Huarong Li; Jiajun Wang; Jingxu Xu; Jun Guo
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  A comparative study of transperineal software-assisted magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy and transrectal cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate.

Authors:  Po-Fan Hsieh; Tian-You Chang; Wen-Chin Huang; Hsi-Chin Wu; Wei-Ching Lin; Han Chang; Chao-Hsiang Chang; Chi-Ping Huang; Chi-Rei Yang; Wen-Chi Chen; Yi-Huei Chang; Yu-De Wang
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 6.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Predictive Models for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Marina Triquell; Miriam Campistol; Ana Celma; Lucas Regis; Mercè Cuadras; Jacques Planas; Enrique Trilla; Juan Morote
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 6.575

7.  Clinical Trial Protocol for PERFECT: A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficiency and Tolerance of Transperineal Fusion Versus Transrectal Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies (CCAFU-PR1 Study).

Authors:  Alae Touzani; Gaëlle Fiard; Eric Barret; Raphaële Renard-Penna; Ambroise Salin; Benjamin Pradère; François Rozet; Jean-Baptiste Beauval; Bernard Malavaud; Gianluca Giannarini; Pierre Colin; Morgan Rouprêt; Guillaume Ploussard
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-10-05

Review 8.  The challenge of prostate biopsy guidance in the era of mpMRI detected lesion: ultrasound-guided versus in-bore biopsy.

Authors:  Auke Jager; Joan C Vilanova; Massimo Michi; Hessel Wijkstra; Jorg R Oddens
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 3.039

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.