Cargando…

Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta- and trial sequential analysis

We systematically reviewed the literature to determine whether Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound (MR/US) fusion prostate biopsy is better than systematic biopsy for making a definitive diagnosis of prostate cancer. The two strategies were also compared for their ability to detect lesions with different...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wu, Jian, Ji, Alin, Xie, Bo, Wang, Xiao, Zhu, Yi, Wang, Junyuan, Yu, Yasai, Zheng, Xiangyi, Liu, Ben, Xie, Liping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Impact Journals LLC 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26498362
_version_ 1782421054640095232
author Wu, Jian
Ji, Alin
Xie, Bo
Wang, Xiao
Zhu, Yi
Wang, Junyuan
Yu, Yasai
Zheng, Xiangyi
Liu, Ben
Xie, Liping
author_facet Wu, Jian
Ji, Alin
Xie, Bo
Wang, Xiao
Zhu, Yi
Wang, Junyuan
Yu, Yasai
Zheng, Xiangyi
Liu, Ben
Xie, Liping
author_sort Wu, Jian
collection PubMed
description We systematically reviewed the literature to determine whether Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound (MR/US) fusion prostate biopsy is better than systematic biopsy for making a definitive diagnosis of prostate cancer. The two strategies were also compared for their ability to detect lesions with different degrees of suspicion on MRI and clinically significant prostate cancer, and the number of cores needed for diagnosis. The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Medline were searched from inception until May 1, 2015. Meta-analysis was conducted via RevMan 5.2 software. Data was expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. Trial sequential analysis was used to assess risk of random errors. Fourteen trials were included, encompassing a total of 3105 participants. We found that MR/US fusion biopsy detected more prostate cancers than systematic biopsy (46.9% vs. 44.2%, p=0.03). In men with moderate/high MRI suspicion, MR/US fusion biopsy did better than systematic biopsy (RR = 1.46; p < 0.05) for making a diagnosis. Moreover, MR/US fusion biopsy detected more clinically significant cancers than systematic biopsy (RR = 1.19; p < 0.05). We recommend that MR/US fusion prostate biopsy be used to better detect prostate cancer, particularly in patients with moderate/high suspicion lesions on MRI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4791251
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Impact Journals LLC
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47912512016-03-28 Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta- and trial sequential analysis Wu, Jian Ji, Alin Xie, Bo Wang, Xiao Zhu, Yi Wang, Junyuan Yu, Yasai Zheng, Xiangyi Liu, Ben Xie, Liping Oncotarget Research Paper We systematically reviewed the literature to determine whether Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound (MR/US) fusion prostate biopsy is better than systematic biopsy for making a definitive diagnosis of prostate cancer. The two strategies were also compared for their ability to detect lesions with different degrees of suspicion on MRI and clinically significant prostate cancer, and the number of cores needed for diagnosis. The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Medline were searched from inception until May 1, 2015. Meta-analysis was conducted via RevMan 5.2 software. Data was expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. Trial sequential analysis was used to assess risk of random errors. Fourteen trials were included, encompassing a total of 3105 participants. We found that MR/US fusion biopsy detected more prostate cancers than systematic biopsy (46.9% vs. 44.2%, p=0.03). In men with moderate/high MRI suspicion, MR/US fusion biopsy did better than systematic biopsy (RR = 1.46; p < 0.05) for making a diagnosis. Moreover, MR/US fusion biopsy detected more clinically significant cancers than systematic biopsy (RR = 1.19; p < 0.05). We recommend that MR/US fusion prostate biopsy be used to better detect prostate cancer, particularly in patients with moderate/high suspicion lesions on MRI. Impact Journals LLC 2015-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4791251/ /pubmed/26498362 Text en Copyright: © 2015 Wu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Paper
Wu, Jian
Ji, Alin
Xie, Bo
Wang, Xiao
Zhu, Yi
Wang, Junyuan
Yu, Yasai
Zheng, Xiangyi
Liu, Ben
Xie, Liping
Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta- and trial sequential analysis
title Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta- and trial sequential analysis
title_full Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta- and trial sequential analysis
title_fullStr Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta- and trial sequential analysis
title_full_unstemmed Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta- and trial sequential analysis
title_short Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta- and trial sequential analysis
title_sort is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta- and trial sequential analysis
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26498362
work_keys_str_mv AT wujian ismagneticresonanceultrasoundfusionprostatebiopsybetterthansystematicprostatebiopsyanupdatedmetaandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT jialin ismagneticresonanceultrasoundfusionprostatebiopsybetterthansystematicprostatebiopsyanupdatedmetaandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT xiebo ismagneticresonanceultrasoundfusionprostatebiopsybetterthansystematicprostatebiopsyanupdatedmetaandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT wangxiao ismagneticresonanceultrasoundfusionprostatebiopsybetterthansystematicprostatebiopsyanupdatedmetaandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT zhuyi ismagneticresonanceultrasoundfusionprostatebiopsybetterthansystematicprostatebiopsyanupdatedmetaandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT wangjunyuan ismagneticresonanceultrasoundfusionprostatebiopsybetterthansystematicprostatebiopsyanupdatedmetaandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT yuyasai ismagneticresonanceultrasoundfusionprostatebiopsybetterthansystematicprostatebiopsyanupdatedmetaandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT zhengxiangyi ismagneticresonanceultrasoundfusionprostatebiopsybetterthansystematicprostatebiopsyanupdatedmetaandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT liuben ismagneticresonanceultrasoundfusionprostatebiopsybetterthansystematicprostatebiopsyanupdatedmetaandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT xieliping ismagneticresonanceultrasoundfusionprostatebiopsybetterthansystematicprostatebiopsyanupdatedmetaandtrialsequentialanalysis