Transperineal US-MRI Fusion-Guided Biopsy for the Detection of Clinical Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cognitive and Software-Assisted Technique.
US-MRI fusion biopsy
clinically significant prostate cancer
magnetic resonance imaging
prostate biopsy
prostate cancer
transperineal prostate biopsy
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Jun 2023
30 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
23
05
2023
revised:
25
06
2023
accepted:
26
06
2023
medline:
14
7
2023
pubmed:
14
7
2023
entrez:
14
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We aimed to find potential differences in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates between transperineal software-assisted fusion biopsy (saFB) and cognitive fusion biopsies (cFB). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify comparative studies using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus according to the PICOS criteria. Cancer detection and complication rates were pooled using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with the random effect model and reported as odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and Eight studies were included for the meta-analysis, including 1149 cases in software-based and 963 cases in cognitive fusion biopsy. The detection rates of csPCa were similar between the two groups (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74-1.37, There is no actual evidence of the superiority of saFB over cFB in terms of the csPCa detection rate. Operator experience and software availability can drive the choice of one fusion technique over the other.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37444552
pii: cancers15133443
doi: 10.3390/cancers15133443
pmc: PMC10341093
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
J Urol. 2018 Dec;200(6):1227-1234
pubmed: 30017964
Prostate Int. 2018 Sep;6(3):88-93
pubmed: 30140657
BJU Int. 2021 Mar;127(3):304-306
pubmed: 33113258
J Urol. 2022 Oct;208(4):830-837
pubmed: 36082555
Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2023 Feb;75(1):31-41
pubmed: 36626117
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Jun;51(9):1164-87
pubmed: 24120180
Eur Urol. 2012 May;61(5):1019-24
pubmed: 22336380
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):438-50
pubmed: 25480312
Prostate Int. 2022 Mar;10(1):34-37
pubmed: 35510097
Can Urol Assoc J. 2021 May;15(5):E293-E298
pubmed: 33119496
J Urol. 2022 Jan;207(1):25-34
pubmed: 34555932
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2023 Feb;21(1):162-170
pubmed: 35970760
J Urol. 2021 Apr;205(4):1075-1081
pubmed: 33207137
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Br J Radiol. 2022 Mar 1;95(1131):20210413
pubmed: 34357796
Eur Urol. 2020 Sep;78(3):402-414
pubmed: 32444265
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023 Jan 11;:
pubmed: 36631536
BJU Int. 2023 Jun;131 Suppl 4:36-42
pubmed: 37099558
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
World J Urol. 2014 Apr;32(2):373-7
pubmed: 23743734
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Jun;1(2):120-128
pubmed: 31100235
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 Sep;23(3):449-456
pubmed: 31953483
J Urol. 2012 Mar;187(3):1080-6
pubmed: 22266005
Transl Androl Urol. 2020 Apr;9(2):601-608
pubmed: 32420165
Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):582-590
pubmed: 30522912
BJU Int. 2017 Jul;120(1):92-103
pubmed: 27608292
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Feb 13;15(4):
pubmed: 36831524
Urol Oncol. 2015 Oct;33(10):424.e9-16
pubmed: 26195330
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Eur Urol. 2023 Mar;83(3):249-256
pubmed: 36604276
Turk J Urol. 2019 Jul 1;45(4):237-244
pubmed: 31291186
Eur Urol. 2015 Jul;68(1):8-19
pubmed: 25454618
Urol Oncol. 2020 Sep;38(9):734.e19-734.e25
pubmed: 32321689
Urol Oncol. 2014 Aug;32(6):903-11
pubmed: 24239473
Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2023 Jun;75(3):297-307
pubmed: 36286400
Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1112-1121
pubmed: 25466942
J Endourol. 2020 Oct;34(10):1008-1014
pubmed: 32600058
Eur Urol. 2019 May;75(5):733-740
pubmed: 30527787