Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Multiparametric MRI localizes cancer in the prostate, allowing for MRI guided biopsy (MRI-GB) 43 alongside transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-GB). Three MRI-GB approaches exist; visual estimation (COG-TB); fusion software-assisted (FUS-TB) and MRI 'in-bore' biopsy (IB-TB). It is unknown whether any of these are superior. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions. First, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Second, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. Third, whether any MRI-GB strategy is superior at detecting csPCa.

Methods

A systematic literature review from 2015 to 2019 was performed in accordance with the START recommendations. Studies reporting PCa detection rates, employing MRI-GB and TRUS-GB were included and evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. 1553 studies were found, of which 43 were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

For csPCa, MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB (0.83 vs. 0.63 [p = 0.02]). MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. No MRI-GB technique was superior at detecting csPCa (IB-TB 0.87; COG TB 0.81; FUS-TB 0.81, [p = 0.55]). There was significant heterogeneity observed between the included studies.

Conclusions

In patients with suspected PCa on MRI, MRI-GB offers superior rates of csPCa detection and reduces detection of insignificant PCa compared to TRUS-GB. No individual MRI-GB technique was found to be better in csPCa detection. Prospective adequately powered randomized controlled trials are required.

SUBMITTER: Bass EJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9184263 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeGiven the limitations of prostate specific antigen and standard biopsies for detecting prostate cancer, we evaluated the cancer detection rate and external validity of a magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy system used at the National Institutes of Health.Materials and methodsWe performed a phase III trial of a magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy system with participants enrolled between 2012 and 2013. A total of 153 men consented to the study and underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with an endorectal coil for clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Lesions were classified as low or moderate/high risk for prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy and standard 12-core prostate biopsy were performed and 105 men were eligible for analysis.ResultsMean patient age was 65.8 years and mean prostate specific antigen was 9.5 ng/ml. The overall cancer detection rate was 62.9% (66 of 105 patients). The cancer detection rate in those with moderate/high risk on imaging was 72.3% (47 of 65) vs 47.5% (19 of 40) in those classified as low risk for prostate cancer (p<0.05). Mean tumor core length was 4.6 and 3.7 mm for fusion biopsy and standard 12-core biopsy, respectively (p<0.05). Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy detected prostate cancer that was missed by standard 12-core biopsy in 14.3% of cases (15 of 105), of which 86.7% (13 of 15) were clinically significant. This biopsy upgraded 23.5% of cancers (4 of 17) deemed clinically insignificant on 12-core biopsy to clinically significant prostate cancer necessitating treatment.ConclusionsMagnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy can improve prostate cancer detection. The results of this trial support the external validity of this platform and may be the next step in the evolution of prostate cancer management.

Project description:PURPOSE:Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy detect more high risk prostate cancer and less low risk prostate cancer than systematic biopsy. However, there remains a small subset of patients in whom systematic biopsy captures higher grade disease than fusion biopsy. We sought to identify potential mechanisms of the failure of fusion biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by fusion biopsy and systematic biopsy from 2007 to 2014. In patients in whom disease was upgraded to clinically significant disease (Gleason 7 or greater) by systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy, independent re-review of magnetic resonance imaging, archived biopsy imaging and whole mount pathology as well as needle coordinate mapping were performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. RESULTS:Disease was upgraded based on systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy in 135 of 1,003 patients (13.5%), of whom only 62 (6.2%) were upgraded to intermediate (Gleason 7) and high risk (Gleason 8 or greater) prostate cancer (51 or 5.1% and 11 or 1.1%, respectively). On multivariate analysis lower prostate specific antigen (p <0.001), higher magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume (p <0.001) and a lower number of target cores (p = 0.001) were predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. Main mechanisms of under grading by fusion biopsy included multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reader oversight, presence of magnetic resonance imaging invisible cancer, fusion biopsy technique error and intralesion Gleason heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:Magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy rarely missed clinically significant prostate cancer as only 62 of 1,003 cases (6.2%) were upgraded to clinically significant disease by systematic biopsy. Imaging and biopsy techniques are continually refined. Further studies will help clarify mechanisms of fusion biopsy failure and the patient populations that benefit from systematic biopsy in addition to fusion biopsy.