Literature DB >> 32321689

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cognitive vs. image-guided fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer.

Kara L Watts1, Laena Frechette2, Ben Muller3, Dan Ilinksy4, Evan Kovac5, Alex Sankin5, Ahmed Aboumohamed5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing overall prostate cancer detection rate and clinically-significant prostate cancer detection rate between MRI-ultrasound image guided fusion biopsy (MRI-US FB) and cognitive biopsy (CB).
METHODS: A systematic review of Pubmed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases was performed. Identified studies were assessed for clinical relevance and excluded based on a set of predefined criteria. Final articles included in the analysis comprised only prospective trials that compared CB vs. MRI-US FB in men with MRI-identifiable lesions (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score 2+). Articles were reviewed for patient demographics, MRI protocol, and rates of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer detection by both modalities.
RESULTS: Nine studies were analyzed. A composite 1,714 men with mean age 64.6 years and mean PSA 8.2 ng/dL were reviewed. When comparing FB to CB, the odds ratio for overall and for clinically significant prostate cancer detection was 1.11 (95%CI 0.91-1.36, P = 0.30) and 1.13 (95%CI 0.89-1.44, P = 0.32), respectively. Heterogeneity among the studies was moderate but not significant for either overall (X2 = 14.67; I2 = 45%; P = 0.07) or clinically significant prostate cancer detection (X2 = 11.81; I2 = 49%; P = 0.07).
CONCLUSION: MRI-US FB demonstrates a trend toward improved rates of prostate cancer detection compared to CB, although this is not statistically significant. Further comparative studies may help to further elucidate whether one of these modalities is superior over the other.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cognitive; Fusion biopsy; Image guided biopsy; MRI; Meta-analysis; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32321689     DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.03.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  6 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

2.  mpMRI-US Fusion-Guided Targeted Cryotherapy in Patients with Primary Localized Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Analysis of Oncological and Functional Outcomes.

Authors:  Esaú Fernández-Pascual; Celeste Manfredi; Cristina Martín; Claudio Martínez-Ballesteros; Carlos Balmori; Enrique Lledó-García; Luis Miguel Quintana; Raphael Curvo; Joaquín Carballido-Rodríguez; Fernando J Bianco; Juan Ignacio Martínez-Salamanca
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 3.  Comparative Effectiveness of Techniques in Targeted Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Dordaneh Sugano; Masatomo Kaneko; Wesley Yip; Amir H Lebastchi; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 6.639

Review 4.  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

5.  Developing a coordinate-based strategy to support cognitive targeted prostate biopsies and correlative spatial-histopathological outcome analysis.

Authors:  Keiran D Clement; Lizzy Day; Helen Rooney; Matt Neilson; Fiona Birrell; Mark Salji; Elizabeth Norman; Ross Clark; Amit Patel; John Morrison; Hing Y Leung
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2021 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.285

6.  New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting.

Authors:  Amy Inji Chang; Byung Kwan Park
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 6.244

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.