Prostate cancer detection and complications of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive registration, software-assisted image fusion or in-bore guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Ugo Giovanni Falagario, Francesco Pellegrino, Antonio Fanelli, Francesco Guzzi, Riccardo Bartoletti, Hannes Cash, Christian Pavlovich, Mark Emberton, Giuseppe Carrieri, Gianluca Giannarini
{"title":"Prostate cancer detection and complications of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive registration, software-assisted image fusion or in-bore guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies","authors":"Ugo Giovanni Falagario, Francesco Pellegrino, Antonio Fanelli, Francesco Guzzi, Riccardo Bartoletti, Hannes Cash, Christian Pavlovich, Mark Emberton, Giuseppe Carrieri, Gianluca Giannarini","doi":"10.1038/s41391-024-00827-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Three primary strategies for MRI-targeted biopsies (TB) are available: Cognitive TB (COG-TB), MRI-US Fusion TB (FUS-TB), and In Bore TB (IB-TB). Despite nearly a decade of practice, a consensus on the preferred approach is lacking, with previous studies showing comparable PCa detection rates among the three methods.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2014 to 2023, to identify studies comparing at least two of the three methods and reporting clinically significant PCa (csPCa) detection rates. The primary and secondary outcomes were to compare the csPCa and insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa, ISUP GG 1) detection rates between TB techniques. The tertiary outcome was to compare the complication rate between TB techniques. Detection rates were pooled using random-effect models. Planned sensitivity analyses included subgroup analysis according to the definition of csPCa and positive MRI, previous biopsy status, biopsy route, prostate volume, and lesion characteristics.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A total of twenty studies, involving 4928 patients, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis unveiled comparable csPCa detection rates among COG-TB (0.37), FUS-TB (0.39), and IB-TB (0.47). iPCa detection rate was also similar between TB techniques (COG-TB: 0.12, FUS-TB: 0.17, IB-TB: 0.18). All preplanned sensitivity analyses were conducted and did not show any statistically significant difference in the detection of csPCa between TB methods. Complication rates, however, were infrequently reported, and when available, no statistically significant differences were observed among the techniques.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>This unique study, exclusively focusing on comparative research, indicates no significant differences in csPCa and iPCa detection rates between COG-TB, FUS-TB, and IB-TB. Decisions between these techniques may extend beyond diagnostic accuracy, considering factors such as resource availability and operator preferences. Well-designed prospective studies are warranted to refine our understanding of the optimal approach for TB in diverse clinical scenarios.</p>","PeriodicalId":20727,"journal":{"name":"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-024-00827-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Three primary strategies for MRI-targeted biopsies (TB) are available: Cognitive TB (COG-TB), MRI-US Fusion TB (FUS-TB), and In Bore TB (IB-TB). Despite nearly a decade of practice, a consensus on the preferred approach is lacking, with previous studies showing comparable PCa detection rates among the three methods.

Methods

We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2014 to 2023, to identify studies comparing at least two of the three methods and reporting clinically significant PCa (csPCa) detection rates. The primary and secondary outcomes were to compare the csPCa and insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa, ISUP GG 1) detection rates between TB techniques. The tertiary outcome was to compare the complication rate between TB techniques. Detection rates were pooled using random-effect models. Planned sensitivity analyses included subgroup analysis according to the definition of csPCa and positive MRI, previous biopsy status, biopsy route, prostate volume, and lesion characteristics.

Results

A total of twenty studies, involving 4928 patients, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis unveiled comparable csPCa detection rates among COG-TB (0.37), FUS-TB (0.39), and IB-TB (0.47). iPCa detection rate was also similar between TB techniques (COG-TB: 0.12, FUS-TB: 0.17, IB-TB: 0.18). All preplanned sensitivity analyses were conducted and did not show any statistically significant difference in the detection of csPCa between TB methods. Complication rates, however, were infrequently reported, and when available, no statistically significant differences were observed among the techniques.

Conclusions

This unique study, exclusively focusing on comparative research, indicates no significant differences in csPCa and iPCa detection rates between COG-TB, FUS-TB, and IB-TB. Decisions between these techniques may extend beyond diagnostic accuracy, considering factors such as resource availability and operator preferences. Well-designed prospective studies are warranted to refine our understanding of the optimal approach for TB in diverse clinical scenarios.

使用认知注册、软件辅助图像融合或孔内引导进行磁共振成像靶向前列腺活检的前列腺癌检测和并发症:比较研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景磁共振成像靶向活检(TB)有三种主要策略:认知 TB (COG-TB)、MRI-US 融合 TB (FUS-TB) 和孔内 TB (IB-TB)。方法我们对 2014 年至 2023 年的 PubMed、EMBASE、PubMed、Web of Science 和 Scopus 数据库进行了检索,以确定比较这三种方法中至少两种方法并报告具有临床意义的 PCa(csPCa)检出率的研究。主要结果和次要结果是比较 TB 技术的 csPCa 和不明显前列腺癌(iPCa,ISUP GG 1)检出率。三级结果是比较不同结核病治疗技术的并发症发生率。检测率采用随机效应模型进行汇总。计划进行的敏感性分析包括根据 csPCa 和 MRI 阳性的定义、既往活检情况、活检途径、前列腺体积和病变特征进行亚组分析。荟萃分析结果显示,COG-TB(0.37)、FUS-TB(0.39)和IB-TB(0.47)的csPCa检出率相当,而不同TB技术的iPCa检出率也相似(COG-TB:0.12;FUS-TB:0.17;IB-TB:0.18)。所有预先计划的敏感性分析均已进行,结果显示不同结核方法在 csPCa 的检测率上没有明显的统计学差异。然而,并发症发生率的报告并不多见,如果有的话,也没有观察到不同技术之间存在统计学意义上的显著差异。结论这项专门针对比较研究的独特研究表明,COG-TB、FUS-TB 和 IB-TB 在 csPCa 和 iPCa 检测率方面没有显著差异。考虑到资源可用性和操作者偏好等因素,这些技术之间的决策可能超出诊断准确性的范围。我们有必要进行精心设计的前瞻性研究,以进一步了解在不同临床情况下治疗结核病的最佳方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
6.20%
发文量
142
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases covers all aspects of prostatic diseases, in particular prostate cancer, the subject of intensive basic and clinical research world-wide. The journal also reports on exciting new developments being made in diagnosis, surgery, radiotherapy, drug discovery and medical management. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases is of interest to surgeons, oncologists and clinicians treating patients and to those involved in research into diseases of the prostate. The journal covers the three main areas - prostate cancer, male LUTS and prostatitis. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases publishes original research articles, reviews, topical comment and critical appraisals of scientific meetings and the latest books. The journal also contains a calendar of forthcoming scientific meetings. The Editors and a distinguished Editorial Board ensure that submitted articles receive fast and efficient attention and are refereed to the highest possible scientific standard. A fast track system is available for topical articles of particular significance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信