This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB). We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde databases through January 2020 for comparative, retrospective/prospective, paired-cohort, and randomized clinical trials with paired comparisons. The population consisted of patients with low-risk PCa in active surveillance with at least 1 index lesion on imaging. We evaluated the quality of evidence by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 score. Group comparisons considered the differences between the area under the curve summary receiver operating characteristic curve in a 2-tailed method. We also compared the positive predictive value of the best single method (MRI-TB or SB) and the referral study test (combined biopsy, a combination of MRI-TB and SB). The meta-analysis included 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. The pooled sensitivity for the 2 groups was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; I2 = 75%) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I2 = 55.4%), respectively. The area under the curve for the MRI-TB and SB groups were 0.99 and 0.92 (P < .001), respectively. The positive predictive value for the MRI-TB and combined biopsy groups were similar. The accumulated evidence suggests better results for MRI-TB compared with SB. Therefore, use of MRI-TB alone may be preferable in patients in active surveillance harboring low-risk PCa.

Accuracy of MRI-guided Versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Patients Under Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Marra G.;
2021-01-01

Abstract

This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB). We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde databases through January 2020 for comparative, retrospective/prospective, paired-cohort, and randomized clinical trials with paired comparisons. The population consisted of patients with low-risk PCa in active surveillance with at least 1 index lesion on imaging. We evaluated the quality of evidence by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 score. Group comparisons considered the differences between the area under the curve summary receiver operating characteristic curve in a 2-tailed method. We also compared the positive predictive value of the best single method (MRI-TB or SB) and the referral study test (combined biopsy, a combination of MRI-TB and SB). The meta-analysis included 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. The pooled sensitivity for the 2 groups was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; I2 = 75%) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I2 = 55.4%), respectively. The area under the curve for the MRI-TB and SB groups were 0.99 and 0.92 (P < .001), respectively. The positive predictive value for the MRI-TB and combined biopsy groups were similar. The accumulated evidence suggests better results for MRI-TB compared with SB. Therefore, use of MRI-TB alone may be preferable in patients in active surveillance harboring low-risk PCa.
2021
19
1
3
11
Diagnosis; Prostate cancer; Systematic biopsy; Target biopsy; Upgrading; Biopsy; Humans; Image-Guided Biopsy; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Watchful Waiting; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms
Baccaglini W.; Glina F.A.; Pazeto C.L.; Medina L.G.; Korkes F.; Bernardo W.M.; Sotelo R.; Glina S.; Marra G.; Moschini M.; Cathelineau X.; Sanchez-Salas R.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S1558767320301476-main.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 1.39 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.39 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1828018
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact