Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique?

• Published in: European urology Vol. 71; no. 4; pp. 517 - 531
• Main Authors: Wegelin, Olivier, van Melick, Harm H.E, Hooft, Lotty, Bosch, J.L.H. Ruud, Reitsma, Hans B, Barentsz, Jelle O, Somford, Diederik M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland Elsevier B.V 01-04-2017
• Subjects: Diagnosis; Endosonography - methods; Humans; Image guided biopsy; Image-Guided Biopsy - methods; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; Meta-analysis; MRI; Prostate - pathology; Prostate cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology; Systematic review; Urology; Systematic review; Image guided biopsy; Diagnosis; MRI; Prostate cancer; Meta-analysis
• ISSN: 0302-2838; 1873-7560
• DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041

Abstract Context The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies (MRI-GB) has changed the paradigm concerning prostate biopsies. Three techniques of MRI-GB are available: (1) in-bore MRI target biopsy (MRI-TB), (2) MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion (FUS-TB), and (3) cognitive registration (COG-TB). Objective To evaluate whether MRI-GB has increased detection rates of (clinically significant) prostate cancer (PCa) compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) in patients at risk for PCa, and which technique of MRI-GB has the highest detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa. Evidence acquisition We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist and START recommendations. The initial search identified 2562 studies and 43 were included in the meta-analysis. Evidence synthesis Among the included studies 11 used MRI-TB, 17 used FUS-TB, 11 used COG-TB, and four used a combination of techniques. In 34 studies concurrent TRUS-GB was performed. There was no significant difference between MRI-GB (all techniques combined) and TRUS-GB for overall PCa detection (relative risk [RR] 0.97 [0.90–1.07]). MRI-GB had higher detection rates of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) compared with TRUS-GB (RR 1.16 [1.02–1.32]), and a lower yield of insignificant PCa (RR 0.47 [0.35–0.63]). There was a significant advantage ( p = 0.02) of MRI-TB compared with COG-TB for overall PCa detection. For overall PCa detection there was no significant advantage of MRI-TB compared with FUS-TB ( p = 0.13), and neither for FUS-TB compared with COG-TB ( p = 0.11). For csPCa detection there was no significant advantage of any one technique of MRI-GB. The impact of lesion characteristics such as size and localisation could not be assessed. Conclusions MRI-GB had similar overall PCa detection rates compared with TRUS-GB, increased rates of csPCa, and decreased rates of insignificant PCa. MRI-TB has a superior overall PCa detection compared with COG-TB. FUS-TB and MRI-TB appear to have similar detection rates. Head-to-head comparisons of MRI-GB techniques are limited and are needed to confirm our findings. Patient summary Our review shows that magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy detects more clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) and less insignificant PCa compared with systematic biopsy in men at risk for PCa.