Optimizing biopsy strategy for prostate cancer: Bayesian framework of network meta-analysis and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model for diagnostic accuracy.


Journal

Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
ISSN: 0970-1591
Titre abrégé: Indian J Urol
Pays: India
ID NLM: 8510441

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Historique:
received: 17 04 2020
revised: 24 07 2020
accepted: 12 10 2020
entrez: 14 4 2021
pubmed: 15 4 2021
medline: 15 4 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are well known problems in prostate cancer (PCa). The transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) Guided biopsy (GB) as a current gold standard investigation has a low positive detection rate resulting in unnecessary biopsies. The choice of optimal biopsy strategy needs to be defined. Therefore, we undertook a Bayesian network meta analysis (NMA) and Bayesian prediction in the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to present a method for optimizing biopsy strategy in PCa. Twenty eight relevant studies were retrieved through online databases of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL up to February 2020. Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation and Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve were used to calculate the rank probability using odds ratio with 95% credible interval. HSROC model was used to formulate the predicted true sensitivity and specificity of each biopsy strategy. Six different PCa biopsy strategies including transrectal ultrasound GB (TRUS GB), fusion GB (FUS GB), fusion + transrectal ultrasound GB (FUS + TRUS GB), magnetic resonance imaging GB (MRI GB), transperineal ultrasound GB (TPUS GB), and contrast enhanced ultrasound GB were analyzed in this study with a total of 7584 patients. These strategies were analyzed on five outcomes including detection rate of overall PCa, clinically significant PCa, insignificant PCa, complication rate, and HSROC. The rank probability showed that the overall PCa detection rate was higher in FUS + TRUS GB, MRI GB, and FUS GB. In terms of clinically significant PCa detection, FUS + TRUS GB and FUS GB had a relatively higher clinically significant PCa detection rate, whereas TRUS GB had a relatively lower rate for clinically significant PCa detection rate. MRI GB (91% and 81%) and FUS GB (82% and 83%) had the highest predicted true sensitivity and specificity, respectively, whereas TRUS GB (62% and 83%) had a lower predicted true sensitivity and specificity. MRI GB, FUS GB, and FUS + TRUS GB were associated with lower complication rate, whereas TPUS GB and TRUS GB were more associated with higher complication rate. This NMA and HSROC model highlight the important finding that FUS + TRUS GB, FUS GB, and MRI GB were superior compared with other strategies to avoid the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of PCa. FUS GB, MRI GB, and FUS + TRUS GB had lower complication rates. These results may assist in shared decision making between patients, carers, and their surgeons.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33850352
doi: 10.4103/iju.IJU_187_20
pii: IJU-37-20
pmc: PMC8033239
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

20-31

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2021 Indian Journal of Urology.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest: There are no conflicts of interest.

Références

Sci Rep. 2015 Nov 03;5:16089
pubmed: 26526558
Iran J Radiol. 2015 Apr 22;12(2):e13257
pubmed: 26060552
J Urol. 2009 Oct;182(4):1329-36
pubmed: 19683269
Front Public Health. 2017 Nov 20;5:307
pubmed: 29209603
J Urol. 2014 Jun;191(6):1749-54
pubmed: 24333515
Prostate. 2007 Oct 1;67(14):1537-42
pubmed: 17705242
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008 Jan-Feb;56(1):45-50
pubmed: 18158403
Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):282-288
pubmed: 27574821
Prostate. 1998 Dec 1;37(4):270-7
pubmed: 9831224
Int Rev Exp Pathol. 1976;16:207-48
pubmed: 783062
J Urol. 2017 Mar;197(3 Pt 1):632-639
pubmed: 27639713
Int J Urol. 2017 Apr;24(4):288-294
pubmed: 28222486
Int J Surg. 2019 Jun;66:28-36
pubmed: 31002882
Eur Urol. 2014 Jun;65(6):1046-55
pubmed: 24439788
N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1320-8
pubmed: 19297566
Transl Androl Urol. 2019 Dec;8(6):741-753
pubmed: 32038971
Intern Emerg Med. 2017 Feb;12(1):103-111
pubmed: 27913917
Radiology. 2009 Nov;253(2):425-34
pubmed: 19864529
J Urol. 2011 Oct;186(4):1281-5
pubmed: 21849184
Urology. 2003 May;61(5):961-6
pubmed: 12736016
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:2176471
pubmed: 29094042
World J Urol. 2016 Jun;34(6):797-803
pubmed: 26481226
Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Apr;20(3):295-9
pubmed: 12117612
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Feb;17(1):e19-e25
pubmed: 30415878
Eur Urol. 2008 Sep;54(3):517-27
pubmed: 18571309
Anticancer Res. 2011 Apr;31(4):1421-6
pubmed: 21508396
Urol Int. 2009;83(2):155-9
pubmed: 19752609
Cancer. 2005 Dec 1;104(11):2373-83
pubmed: 16240450
Urol Radiol. 1990;12(2):109-14
pubmed: 1700526
J Urol. 2013 Nov;190(5):1721-1727
pubmed: 23727310
Eur Urol. 2015 Oct;68(4):713-20
pubmed: 26116294
J Urol. 2011 Jun;185(6):2132-6
pubmed: 21496851
Urol Int. 2005;74(3):203-8
pubmed: 15812204
J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):520-7
pubmed: 20006859
Anticancer Res. 2007 Nov-Dec;27(6C):4315-20
pubmed: 18214038
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 Nov;41(11):2836-41
pubmed: 26298036
Urol Int. 2018;100(1):57-65
pubmed: 29084410
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):149-56
pubmed: 25862143
BMJ. 2005 Oct 15;331(7521):897-900
pubmed: 16223826
BJU Int. 2011 Dec;108(11):1723-7
pubmed: 21756276
Stat Med. 2004 Oct 30;23(20):3105-24
pubmed: 15449338
J Cancer. 2018 Jun 5;9(13):2237-2248
pubmed: 30026819
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
Anticancer Res. 1997 Jul-Aug;17(4B):2979-81
pubmed: 9329580
BMC Urol. 2016 Nov 17;16(1):68
pubmed: 27855661
N Engl J Med. 2013 Apr 4;368(14):1314-25
pubmed: 23550669
Radiology. 2013 Aug;268(2):461-9
pubmed: 23579051
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Urology. 1998 Dec;52(6):1070-2
pubmed: 9836556
Ann Transl Med. 2018 Sep;6(18):358
pubmed: 30370285
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7
pubmed: 25626035
Asian J Androl. 2015 May-Jun;17(3):475-80
pubmed: 25578935
Yonsei Med J. 2004 Aug 31;45(4):671-5
pubmed: 15344209
Eur Urol. 2014 Apr;65(4):809-15
pubmed: 23523537
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108
pubmed: 25651787
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1998 Dec;32(6):373-7
pubmed: 9924998
J Urol. 2011 Mar;185(3):815-20
pubmed: 21239006
Eur Urol. 2018 Mar;73(3):343-350
pubmed: 28647216
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Stat Med. 2001 Oct 15;20(19):2865-84
pubmed: 11568945
Urol Oncol. 2010 Nov-Dec;28(6):663-7
pubmed: 21062647
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015 May-Jun;21(3):215-21
pubmed: 25858525
Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Nov;2(6):617-624
pubmed: 31519516
Eur J Radiol. 2016 Oct;85(10):1778-1785
pubmed: 27666616
Urology. 2008 Feb;71(2):191-5
pubmed: 18308081
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 2;2(8):e198427
pubmed: 31390032

Auteurs

Ilham Akbar Rahman (IA)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia.

Ilham Fauzan Nusaly (IF)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia.

Syakri Syahrir (S)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia.

Harry Nusaly (H)

Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia.

Firdaus Kasim (F)

Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia.

Classifications MeSH