Regional Versus Systematic Biopsy in Addition to Targeted Biopsy: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Clinically significant prostate cancer Prostate magnetic resonance imaging Regional targeted prostate biopsy Systematic prostate biopsy Targeted prostate biopsy

Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
24 Oct 2024
Historique:
received: 21 08 2024
revised: 29 09 2024
accepted: 09 10 2024
medline: 26 10 2024
pubmed: 26 10 2024
entrez: 25 10 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Intensification of targeted biopsy (TBx) around a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible lesion with regional biopsy (RBx) could obviate the need for systematic biopsy (SBx). We aimed to compare the detection yields of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa)-defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group ≥2-between TBx + RBx and the reference standard (TBx + SBx). RBx was defined as perilesional or ipsilateral biopsy. A literature search was conducted up to September 2023 using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Included studies were eligible when presenting data from SBx, TBx, and TBx + RBx cores and their detection yields. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria were used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Twenty-one studies were included for a meta-analysis. The overall detection yield of csPCa was not statistically different between TBx + SBX and TBx + RBx (46.1% vs 44.2%; odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.16, p = 0.07); similar findings were found also for ISUP grade group ≥3 prostate cancer (PCa; OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92-1.22, p = 0.43) and in different subgroup analyses. TBx + SBx was associated with higher cancer detection of ISUP grade group 1 PCa (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.30, p = 0.008). The main limitations include the retrospective nature of most of the selected studies, heterogeneity of RBx definition, and template. Our study supports the use of the TBx + RBx template in the early detection pathway for the detection of csPCa. SBx can be omitted when targeting lesions visible on MRI. A prostate biopsy strategy consisting of taking biopsy in and around an magnetic resonance imaging-visible lesion reduces the risk of detecting indolent prostate cancers without affecting the detection of aggressive tumours.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
Intensification of targeted biopsy (TBx) around a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible lesion with regional biopsy (RBx) could obviate the need for systematic biopsy (SBx). We aimed to compare the detection yields of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa)-defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group ≥2-between TBx + RBx and the reference standard (TBx + SBx).
METHODS METHODS
RBx was defined as perilesional or ipsilateral biopsy. A literature search was conducted up to September 2023 using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Included studies were eligible when presenting data from SBx, TBx, and TBx + RBx cores and their detection yields. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) criteria were used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.
KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS UNASSIGNED
Twenty-one studies were included for a meta-analysis. The overall detection yield of csPCa was not statistically different between TBx + SBX and TBx + RBx (46.1% vs 44.2%; odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.16, p = 0.07); similar findings were found also for ISUP grade group ≥3 prostate cancer (PCa; OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92-1.22, p = 0.43) and in different subgroup analyses. TBx + SBx was associated with higher cancer detection of ISUP grade group 1 PCa (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.30, p = 0.008). The main limitations include the retrospective nature of most of the selected studies, heterogeneity of RBx definition, and template.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our study supports the use of the TBx + RBx template in the early detection pathway for the detection of csPCa. SBx can be omitted when targeting lesions visible on MRI.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
A prostate biopsy strategy consisting of taking biopsy in and around an magnetic resonance imaging-visible lesion reduces the risk of detecting indolent prostate cancers without affecting the detection of aggressive tumours.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39455339
pii: S2588-9311(24)00234-7
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.10.006
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Francesco Sanguedolce (F)

Fundació Puigvert, Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology Unit, Barcelona, Spain; Institut Reserca Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; Dipartimento di Medicina, Chirurgia e Farmacia, Universitá degli Studi di Sassari, Sassari, Italy. Electronic address: fsangue@hotmail.com.

Carol Nancy Gianna Lauwers (CNG)

Fundació Puigvert, Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology Unit, Barcelona, Spain; Dipartimento di Medicina, Chirurgia e Farmacia, Universitá degli Studi di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.

Alessandro Tedde (A)

Fundació Puigvert, Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology Unit, Barcelona, Spain; Dipartimento di Medicina, Chirurgia e Farmacia, Universitá degli Studi di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.

Giuseppe Basile (G)

Fundació Puigvert, Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology Unit, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Daria Chernysheva (D)

Fundació Puigvert, Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology Unit, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Urology and Andrology, Shox International Hospital, Taschkent, Uzbekistan.

Alessandro Uleri (A)

Department of Urology, North Academic Hospital, AP-HM, Marseille, France; Department of Urology, IRCCS - Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.

Michael Baboudjian (M)

Department of Urology, North Academic Hospital, AP-HM, Marseille, France.

Gianluca Giannarini (G)

Unit of Urology, Santa Maria della Misericordia Academic Medical Centre, Udine, Italy.

Valeria Panebianco (V)

Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Massimo Madonia (M)

Dipartimento di Medicina, Chirurgia e Farmacia, Universitá degli Studi di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.

Lars Budeaus (L)

Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Morgan Roupret (M)

Urology, GRC 5 Predictive Onco-Uro, AP-HP, Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.

Joan Palou (J)

Fundació Puigvert, Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology Unit, Barcelona, Spain; Institut Reserca Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.

Alberto Breda (A)

Fundació Puigvert, Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology Unit, Barcelona, Spain; Institut Reserca Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.

Ivo Schoots (I)

Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Anwar R Padhani (AR)

Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK.

Classifications MeSH