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
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.
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.