Andrew S Knight1, Pranav Sharma1, Werner T W de Riese2. 1. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 3601-4th Street STOP 7260, Lubbock, TX, 79430-7260, USA. 2. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, 3601-4th Street STOP 7260, Lubbock, TX, 79430-7260, USA. Werner.deriese@ttuhsc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a precise, systemic and advantageous imaging technique when compared to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) which is very operator dependent. The negative correlation between prostate volume and the incidence of prostate cancer (PCa) obtained by TRUS biopsy has been well documented in the literature. The purpose of this systemic review is analyzing the reported MRI-fusion study results on prostate biopsies regarding any correlation between prostate volume and the incidence of PCa. METHODS: After defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria an in-depth review were performed between 01.01.2000 and 02.08.2022 using the PubMed database and applying the "PRISMA" guidelines. RESULTS: Twelve studies qualified, and all showed an inverse/negative relationship between prostate volume and incidence of PCa. Sample sizes ranged from 33 to 2767 patients in single and multi-institutional studies. All studies showed a statistically significant inverse relationship with a p value < 0.05. The graph summarizing all of studies and using Fisher's method revealed a highly significant combined p level of 0.00001. Additionally, not one single study was found showing the contrary (a positive correlation between prostate size and the incidence of PCa). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first systemic review of reported MRI-Fusion data on the incidence of PCa in correlation with prostate volume. This MRI review confirms previous TRUS-biopsy studies which demonstrated an inverse relationship between prostate volume and the incidence of PCa, and thus further supports the hypothesis that large prostates size may be protective against PCa when compared to smaller prostates.
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a precise, systemic and advantageous imaging technique when compared to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) which is very operator dependent. The negative correlation between prostate volume and the incidence of prostate cancer (PCa) obtained by TRUS biopsy has been well documented in the literature. The purpose of this systemic review is analyzing the reported MRI-fusion study results on prostate biopsies regarding any correlation between prostate volume and the incidence of PCa. METHODS: After defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria an in-depth review were performed between 01.01.2000 and 02.08.2022 using the PubMed database and applying the "PRISMA" guidelines. RESULTS: Twelve studies qualified, and all showed an inverse/negative relationship between prostate volume and incidence of PCa. Sample sizes ranged from 33 to 2767 patients in single and multi-institutional studies. All studies showed a statistically significant inverse relationship with a p value < 0.05. The graph summarizing all of studies and using Fisher's method revealed a highly significant combined p level of 0.00001. Additionally, not one single study was found showing the contrary (a positive correlation between prostate size and the incidence of PCa). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first systemic review of reported MRI-Fusion data on the incidence of PCa in correlation with prostate volume. This MRI review confirms previous TRUS-biopsy studies which demonstrated an inverse relationship between prostate volume and the incidence of PCa, and thus further supports the hypothesis that large prostates size may be protective against PCa when compared to smaller prostates.
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Jelle O Barentsz; Thomas Hambrock; Derya Yakar; Diederik M Somford; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Pieter C Vos; Henkjan Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Brian R Lane; Craig D Zippe; Robert Abouassaly; Lynn Schoenfield; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; J Stephen Jones Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: H Hricak; G C Dooms; J E McNeal; A S Mark; M Marotti; A Avallone; M Pelzer; E C Proctor; E A Tanagho Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1987-01 Impact factor: 3.959