Is ipsilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy the optimal substitute for bilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Qiyou Wu M.D. , Xiang Tu Ph.D. , Jinjiang Jiang Ph.D., Jianjun Ye Ph.D., Tianhai Lin Ph.D., Zhenhua Liu Ph.D., Lu Yang Ph.D., Shi Qiu Ph.D., Bo Tang Ph.D., Yige Bao Ph.D., Qiang Wei Ph.D.
{"title":"Is ipsilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy the optimal substitute for bilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Qiyou Wu M.D. ,&nbsp;Xiang Tu Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Jinjiang Jiang Ph.D.,&nbsp;Jianjun Ye Ph.D.,&nbsp;Tianhai Lin Ph.D.,&nbsp;Zhenhua Liu Ph.D.,&nbsp;Lu Yang Ph.D.,&nbsp;Shi Qiu Ph.D.,&nbsp;Bo Tang Ph.D.,&nbsp;Yige Bao Ph.D.,&nbsp;Qiang Wei Ph.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.11.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The current standard prostate biopsy method, which combine systematic biopsy (SB) with targeted biopsy (TB), has shortcomings such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. To evaluate the effectiveness of ipsilateral systematic biopsy (ips-SB) combined with targeted biopsy (ips-SB+TB) and contralateral SB (con-SB) combined with TB (con-SB+TB) as potential alternatives to SB+TB.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Cochrane, Embase, Ovid, and PubMed databases until September 2024. 2,732 references were identified, and 11 records were included.</div></div><div><h3>Main findings</h3><div>The study included a total of 5,249 patients and revealed that ips-SB+TB detected slightly less PCa than SB+TB with a relative risk (RR) of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91, 1.00), <em>P</em> = 0.05. In terms of csPCa detection, ips-SB+TB showed a comparable detection rate with SB+TB (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94, 1.01], <em>P</em> = 0.60). There was a statistically significant difference in csPCa detection between con-SB+TB and SB+TB (RR 0.92 [95% CI 0.86, 0.99], <em>P</em> = 0.02). The detection rates of clinically insignificant PCa (ciPCa) were comparable between con-SB+TB vs. SB+TB (con-SB+TB vs. SB+TB: RR 0.90 [95% CI 0.79, 1.04], <em>P</em> = 0.15). However, fewer ciPCa cases were detected in ips-SB+TB compared to SB+TB (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75, 0.99], <em>P</em> = 0.04).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In this review, our analysis highlights ips-SB+TB has the comparable detection efficiency of PCa and csPCa compared to SB+TB, and its potential to be the substitute of the SB+TB with less cores and less detection of ciPCa.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":"43 5","pages":"Pages 307-317"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078143924007774","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The current standard prostate biopsy method, which combine systematic biopsy (SB) with targeted biopsy (TB), has shortcomings such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. To evaluate the effectiveness of ipsilateral systematic biopsy (ips-SB) combined with targeted biopsy (ips-SB+TB) and contralateral SB (con-SB) combined with TB (con-SB+TB) as potential alternatives to SB+TB.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Cochrane, Embase, Ovid, and PubMed databases until September 2024. 2,732 references were identified, and 11 records were included.

Main findings

The study included a total of 5,249 patients and revealed that ips-SB+TB detected slightly less PCa than SB+TB with a relative risk (RR) of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91, 1.00), P = 0.05. In terms of csPCa detection, ips-SB+TB showed a comparable detection rate with SB+TB (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94, 1.01], P = 0.60). There was a statistically significant difference in csPCa detection between con-SB+TB and SB+TB (RR 0.92 [95% CI 0.86, 0.99], P = 0.02). The detection rates of clinically insignificant PCa (ciPCa) were comparable between con-SB+TB vs. SB+TB (con-SB+TB vs. SB+TB: RR 0.90 [95% CI 0.79, 1.04], P = 0.15). However, fewer ciPCa cases were detected in ips-SB+TB compared to SB+TB (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75, 0.99], P = 0.04).

Conclusions

In this review, our analysis highlights ips-SB+TB has the comparable detection efficiency of PCa and csPCa compared to SB+TB, and its potential to be the substitute of the SB+TB with less cores and less detection of ciPCa.
同侧系统活检联合靶向活检是双侧系统活检联合靶向活检的最佳替代品:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:目前标准的前列腺活检方法将系统性活检(SB)与靶向活检(TB)相结合,存在过度诊断、过度治疗等缺点。评估同侧系统活检(ips-SB)联合靶向活检(ips-SB+TB)和对侧SB(对照-SB)联合TB(对照-SB+TB)作为SB+TB的潜在替代方案的有效性。方法:到2024年9月,在Cochrane、Embase、Ovid和PubMed数据库中进行全面的文献检索。共识别文献2732篇,纳入记录11条。主要发现:本研究共纳入5249例患者,发现ips-SB+TB检出的PCa略低于SB+TB,相对危险度(RR)为0.95 (95% CI 0.91, 1.00), P = 0.05。在csPCa检出率方面,ips-SB+TB与SB+TB检出率相当(RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94, 1.01], P = 0.60)。con-SB+TB与SB+TB的csPCa检出率差异有统计学意义(RR 0.92 [95% CI 0.86, 0.99], P = 0.02)。临床不显著PCa (ciPCa)检出率在con-SB+TB与SB+TB之间具有可比性(con-SB+TB与SB+TB: RR 0.90 [95% CI 0.79, 1.04], P = 0.15)。然而,与SB+TB相比,ips-SB+TB中检测到的ciPCa病例较少(RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75, 0.99], P = 0.04)。结论:与SB+TB相比,ips-SB+TB对PCa和csPCa的检测效率相当,具有较少核数和较少ciPCa检测的SB+TB的替代潜力。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
297
审稿时长
7.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.
×
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