Literature DB >> 31609177

Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Informed Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy Naïve Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Hanan Goldberg1,2, Ardalan E Ahmad1, Thenappan Chandrasekar3, Laurence Klotz4, Mark Emberton5, Masoom A Haider6, Samir S Taneja7, Karan Arora8, Neil Fleshner1, Antonio Finelli1, Nathan Perlis1, Mark D Tyson8, Zachary Klaassen9,10, Christopher J D Wallis1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with informed targeted biopsies has changed the paradigm of prostate cancer diagnosis. Randomized studies have demonstrated a diagnostic benefit of clinical significance for targeted biopsy compared to standard systematic biopsies. We evaluated whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy has superior diagnosis rates of any, clinically significant, high grade and clinically insignificant prostate cancer compared to systematic biopsy in biopsy naïve men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were searched in Medline®, Embase®, Web of Science and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception until 2019. Studies were selected by 2 authors independently, with disagreements resolved by consensus with a third author. Overall 1,951 unique references were identified and 100 manuscripts underwent full-text review. Data were pooled using random effects models. The meta-analysis is reported according to the PRISMA statement and the study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019128468).
RESULTS: Overall 29 studies (13,845 patients) were analyzed. Compared to systematic biopsy, use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy was associated with a 15% higher rate of any prostate cancer diagnosis (95% CI 10-20, p <0.00001). This relationship was not affected by the study methodology (p=0.11). Diagnoses of clinically significant and high grade prostate cancer were more common in the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy group (risk difference 11%, 95% CI 0-20, p=0.05 and 2%, 95% CI 1-4, p=0.005, respectively) while there was no difference in diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (risk difference 0, 95% CI -3 to 3, p=0.96). Notably, the exclusion of systematic biopsy in the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy arm significantly modified the association between a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging strategy and lower rates of clinically insignificant prostate cancer diagnosis (p=0.01) without affecting the diagnosis rates of clinically significant or high grade prostate cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to systematic biopsy a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy strategy results in a significantly higher diagnosis rate of any, clinically significant and high grade prostate cancer. Excluding systematic biopsy from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy was associated with decreased rates of clinically insignificant prostate cancer diagnosis without affecting diagnosis of clinically significant or high grade prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biopsy; multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms

Year:  2019        PMID: 31609177     DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000595

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  15 in total

Review 1.  Techniques and Outcomes of MRI-TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy.

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

2.  A multifaceted approach to quality in the MRI-directed biopsy pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Ivo G Schoots; Baris Turkbey; Gianluca Giannarini; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Development of a novel nomogram to identify the candidate to extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients who underwent mpMRI and target biopsy only.

Authors:  Cristian Fiori; Enrico Checcucci; Ilaria Stura; Daniele Amparore; Sabrina De Cillis; Alberto Piana; Stefano Granato; Gabriele Volpi; Michele Sica; Federico Piramide; Paolo Verri; Matteo Manfredi; Stefano De Luca; Riccardo Autorino; Giuseppe Migliaretti; Francesco Porpiglia
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 5.554

4.  MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer: current evidence and future challenges.

Authors:  Christoph Würnschimmel; Thenappan Chandrasekar; Luisa Hahn; Tarik Esen; Shahrokh F Shariat; Derya Tilki
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  Prostate zones and cancer: lost in transition?

Authors:  Amin Ali; Alexander Du Feu; Pedro Oliveira; Ananya Choudhury; Robert G Bristow; Esther Baena
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Evaluation of systematic prostate biopsies when performing transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy with needle tracking-what is the additional value?

Authors:  Jakob Schlegel; Stefan Hinz; Karsten Günzel; Ahmed Magheli; Jonas Busch; Eduard Baco; Hannes Cash; Stefan Heinrich; Daniela Edler; Martin Schostak; Hendrik Borgmann
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 2.266

7.  The prognostic value of high-grade prostate cancer pattern on MRI-targeted biopsies: predictors for downgrading and importance of concomitant systematic biopsies.

Authors:  Cécile Manceau; Gaëlle Fromont-Hankard; Jean-Baptiste Beauval; Marine Lesourd; Christophe Almeras; Anne-Sophie Bajeot; Jean-Romain Gautier; Michel Soulié; Guillaume Loison; Ambroise Salin; Christophe Tollon; Bernard Malavaud; Mathieu Roumiguié; Guillaume Ploussard
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Systematic biopsy should not be omitted in the era of combined magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsies of the prostate.

Authors:  Branimir Lodeta; Vladimir Trkulja; Georg Kolroser-Sarmiento; Danijel Jozipovic; Aigul Salmhofer; Herbert Augustin
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 2.370

9.  Oncologic Outcomes after Localized Prostate Cancer Treatment: Associations with Pretreatment Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings.

Authors:  Andreas G Wibmer; Joshua Chaim; Yulia Lakhman; Robert A Lefkowitz; Josip Nincevic; Ines Nikolovski; Evis Sala; Mithat Gonen; Sigrid V Carlsson; Samson W Fine; Michael J Zelefsky; Peter Scardino; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Clinical implementation of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging pathways for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Bas Israël; Jos Immerzeel; Marloes van der Leest; Gerjon Hannink; Patrik Zámecnik; Joyce Bomers; Ivo G Schoots; Jean-Paul van Basten; Frans Debruyne; Inge van Oort; Michiel Sedelaar; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 5.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.