Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates between magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System in patients with PSA ≥4 ng/mL: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Previous studies have investigated magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) on the detection for prostate cancer (PCa). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), as a standardized MRI reporting system, has widely been used in the management of PCa. However, basing the PI-RADS...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inTranslational andrology and urology Vol. 8; no. 6; pp. 741 - 753
Main Authors Zhu, Kai, Qin, Zhiqiang, Xue, Jianxin, Miao, Chenkui, Tian, Ye, Liu, Shouyong, Zhu, Shenhao, Gu, Qi, Hou, Chao, Xu, Aiming, Yang, Jie, Wang, Zengjun
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published China AME Publishing Company 01.12.2019
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Previous studies have investigated magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) on the detection for prostate cancer (PCa). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), as a standardized MRI reporting system, has widely been used in the management of PCa. However, basing the PI-RADS score, the comparability between MRI-TBx and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx) in diagnosing PCa remained inconsistent or even controversial. Thus, this systematic meta-analysis aimed to assess the value of PI-RADS in sifting better prostate biopsy method. A meta-analysis including 10 articles was performed. In these included studies, biopsy-naive subjects with concerning PSA levels and/or an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) were consecutively enrolled by referral from urologists. All subjects underwent multiparameter MRI (mpMRI) prostate and the results were scored independently by PI-RADS. Subjects with equivocal (PI-RADS 3) and intermediate/high-risk (PI-RADS 4/5) lesions underwent MRI-TBx and followed by TRUS-Bx performed by a urologist. The online databases PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched to find all correlated articles until October 1 , 2019. Data were pooled by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the strength of the associations. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on Gleason score. Overall, 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis from January, 2015 to June, 2019. In the comparison of the detection of MRI-TBx and TRUS-Bx in PCa patients, TRUS-Bx had a significant advantage in overall PCa detection compared with MRI-TBx (OR =0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.98) in PI-RADS 3. Basing subgroup analysis of Gleason score (csPCa: Gleason score ≥7; non-csPCa: Gleason score <7), a summary analysis of the detection rate of csPCa showed that no significant difference was found (OR =0.82, 95% CI: 0.58-1.16); Meanwhile, no significant difference in non-csPCa patients was also detected (OR =0.83, 95% CI: 0.53-1.28). In PI-RADS 4 or 5, no significant results were detected between MRI-TBx and TRUS-Bx (OR =0.96, 95% CI: 0.87-1.06) for overall PCa detection. The stratification analyses by Gleason score found that TRUS-Bx had an advantage over MRI-TBx in non-csPCa patients (OR =0.76, 95% CI: 0.60-0.98); However, there was no significant difference in the detection rate of csPCa (OR =1.05, 95% CI: 0.93-1.20). This meta-analysis indicated that using TRUS-Bx was better than MRI-TBx for the diagnosis of PCa in PI-RADS 3; Besides, TRUS-Bx have an advantage over MRI-TBx in the detection for non-csPCa in PI-RADS 4 or 5. Therefore, PI-RADS could be used as a MRI evaluation system in the selection of prostate biopsy.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Contributions: (I) Conception and design: Z Wang, J Yang; (II) Administrative support: Z Wang, J Yang, J Xue; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: C Miao, Y Tian, S Liu; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: K Zhu, Z Qin, J Xue, C Hou, A Xu; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: K Zhu, Z Qin, J Xue, S Zhu, Q Gu; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
ISSN:2223-4683
2223-4691
2223-4691
DOI:10.21037/tau.2019.12.03