Original Article
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
Abstract
Background: 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.
Methods: 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 1st, 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.
Results: 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).
Conclusions: 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.
Methods: 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 1st, 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.
Results: 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).
Conclusions: 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.
