Cargando…

Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective: With the increasing recognition of the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of prostate cancer (PCa), the choice of a better prostate biopsy strategy had confused both the patients and clinical surgeons. Hence, this network meta-analysis was conducted to clarify this question. Methods: In th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Yi, Zhu, Jundong, Qin, Zhiqiang, Wang, Yamin, Chen, Chen, Wang, Yichun, Zhou, Xiang, Zhang, Qijie, Meng, Xianghu, Song, Ninghong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ivyspring International Publisher 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6036722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30026819
http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/jca.24690
_version_ 1783338207724699648
author Wang, Yi
Zhu, Jundong
Qin, Zhiqiang
Wang, Yamin
Chen, Chen
Wang, Yichun
Zhou, Xiang
Zhang, Qijie
Meng, Xianghu
Song, Ninghong
author_facet Wang, Yi
Zhu, Jundong
Qin, Zhiqiang
Wang, Yamin
Chen, Chen
Wang, Yichun
Zhou, Xiang
Zhang, Qijie
Meng, Xianghu
Song, Ninghong
author_sort Wang, Yi
collection PubMed
description Objective: With the increasing recognition of the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of prostate cancer (PCa), the choice of a better prostate biopsy strategy had confused both the patients and clinical surgeons. Hence, this network meta-analysis was conducted to clarify this question. Methods: In the current network meta-analysis, twenty eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 4,571 participants were comprehensively identified through Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science databases up to July 2017. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) was calculated by Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted by using R-3.4.0 software with the help of package “gemtc” version 0.8.2. Results: Six different PCa biopsy strategies and four clinical outcomes were ultimately analyzed in this study. Although, the efficacy of different PCa biopsy strategies by ORs with corresponding 95% CrIs had not yet reached statistical differences, the cumulative rank probability indicated that overall PCa detection rate from best to worst was FUS-GB plus TRUS-GB, FUS-GB, CEUS, MRI-GB, TRUS-GB and TPUS-GB. In terms of clinically significant PCa detection, CEUS, FUS-GB or FUS-GB plus TRUS-GB had a higher, whereas TRUS-GB or TPUS-GB had a relatively lower significant detection rate. Meanwhile, TPUS-GB or TRUS-GB had a higher insignificant PCa detection rate. As for TRUS-guided biopsy, the general trend was that the more biopsy cores, the higher overall PCa detection rate. As for targeted biopsy, it could yield a comparable or even a better effect with fewer cores, compared with traditional random biopsy. Conclusion: Taken together, in a comprehensive consideration of four clinical outcomes, our outcomes shed light on that FUS-GB or FUS-GB plus TRUS-GB showed their superiority, compared with other puncture methods in the detection of PCa. Moreover, TPUS or TRUS-GB was more easily associated with the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of PCa. In addition, targeted biopsy was obviously more effective than traditional random biopsy. The subsequent RCTs with larger sample sizes were required to validate our findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6036722
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Ivyspring International Publisher
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60367222018-07-19 Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Wang, Yi Zhu, Jundong Qin, Zhiqiang Wang, Yamin Chen, Chen Wang, Yichun Zhou, Xiang Zhang, Qijie Meng, Xianghu Song, Ninghong J Cancer Research Paper Objective: With the increasing recognition of the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of prostate cancer (PCa), the choice of a better prostate biopsy strategy had confused both the patients and clinical surgeons. Hence, this network meta-analysis was conducted to clarify this question. Methods: In the current network meta-analysis, twenty eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 4,571 participants were comprehensively identified through Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science databases up to July 2017. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) was calculated by Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted by using R-3.4.0 software with the help of package “gemtc” version 0.8.2. Results: Six different PCa biopsy strategies and four clinical outcomes were ultimately analyzed in this study. Although, the efficacy of different PCa biopsy strategies by ORs with corresponding 95% CrIs had not yet reached statistical differences, the cumulative rank probability indicated that overall PCa detection rate from best to worst was FUS-GB plus TRUS-GB, FUS-GB, CEUS, MRI-GB, TRUS-GB and TPUS-GB. In terms of clinically significant PCa detection, CEUS, FUS-GB or FUS-GB plus TRUS-GB had a higher, whereas TRUS-GB or TPUS-GB had a relatively lower significant detection rate. Meanwhile, TPUS-GB or TRUS-GB had a higher insignificant PCa detection rate. As for TRUS-guided biopsy, the general trend was that the more biopsy cores, the higher overall PCa detection rate. As for targeted biopsy, it could yield a comparable or even a better effect with fewer cores, compared with traditional random biopsy. Conclusion: Taken together, in a comprehensive consideration of four clinical outcomes, our outcomes shed light on that FUS-GB or FUS-GB plus TRUS-GB showed their superiority, compared with other puncture methods in the detection of PCa. Moreover, TPUS or TRUS-GB was more easily associated with the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of PCa. In addition, targeted biopsy was obviously more effective than traditional random biopsy. The subsequent RCTs with larger sample sizes were required to validate our findings. Ivyspring International Publisher 2018-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6036722/ /pubmed/30026819 http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/jca.24690 Text en © Ivyspring International Publisher This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.
spellingShingle Research Paper
Wang, Yi
Zhu, Jundong
Qin, Zhiqiang
Wang, Yamin
Chen, Chen
Wang, Yichun
Zhou, Xiang
Zhang, Qijie
Meng, Xianghu
Song, Ninghong
Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6036722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30026819
http://dx.doi.org/10.7150/jca.24690
work_keys_str_mv AT wangyi optimalbiopsystrategyforprostatecancerdetectionbyperformingabayesiannetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT zhujundong optimalbiopsystrategyforprostatecancerdetectionbyperformingabayesiannetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT qinzhiqiang optimalbiopsystrategyforprostatecancerdetectionbyperformingabayesiannetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT wangyamin optimalbiopsystrategyforprostatecancerdetectionbyperformingabayesiannetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT chenchen optimalbiopsystrategyforprostatecancerdetectionbyperformingabayesiannetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT wangyichun optimalbiopsystrategyforprostatecancerdetectionbyperformingabayesiannetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT zhouxiang optimalbiopsystrategyforprostatecancerdetectionbyperformingabayesiannetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT zhangqijie optimalbiopsystrategyforprostatecancerdetectionbyperformingabayesiannetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT mengxianghu optimalbiopsystrategyforprostatecancerdetectionbyperformingabayesiannetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT songninghong optimalbiopsystrategyforprostatecancerdetectionbyperformingabayesiannetworkmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials