Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique?

Contains fulltext : 191365.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)CONTEXT: The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies (MRI-GB) has changed the paradigm concerning prostate biopsies. Three techniques of MRI-GB are available: (1) in-bore MRI target biopsy (MRI-TB), (2) MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion (FUS-TB), and (3) cognitive registration (COG-TB). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether MRI-GB has increased detection rates of (clinically significant) prostate cancer (PCa) compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) in patients at risk for PCa, and which technique of MRI-GB has the highest detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist and START recommendations. The initial search identified 2562 studies and 43 were included in the meta-analysis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Among the included studies 11 used MRI-TB, 17 used FUS-TB, 11 used COG-TB, and four used a combination of techniques. In 34 studies concurrent TRUS-GB was performed. There was no significant difference between MRI-GB (all techniques combined) and TRUS-GB for overall PCa detection (relative risk [RR] 0.97 [0.90-1.07]). MRI-GB had higher detection rates of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) compared with TRUS-GB (RR 1.16 [1.02-1.32]), and a lower yield of insignificant PCa (RR 0.47 [0.35-0.63]). There was a significant advantage (p = 0.02) of MRI-TB compared with COG-TB for overall PCa detection. For overall PCa detection there was no significant advantage of MRI-TB compared with FUS-TB (p=0.13), and neither for FUS-TB compared with COG-TB (p=0.11). For csPCa detection there was no significant advantage of any one technique of MRI-GB. The impact of lesion characteristics such as size and localisation could not be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-GB had similar overall PCa detection rates compared with TRUS-GB, increased rates of csPCa, and decreased rates of insignificant PCa. MRI-TB has a superior overall PCa detection compared with COG-TB. FUS-TB and MRI-TB appear to have similar detection rates. Head-to-head comparisons of MRI-GB techniques are limited and are needed to confirm our findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our review shows that magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy detects more clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) and less insignificant PCa compared with systematic biopsy in men at risk for PCa

Complications and Adverse Events of Three Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Target Biopsy Techniques in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer Among Men with Prior Negative Biopsies: Results from the FUTURE Trial, a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial

Contains fulltext : 215769.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: Three techniques of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based targeted biopsy (TB) of the prostate exist. There is no superiority regarding diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer (PCa) detection. OBJECTIVE: To compare adverse events (AEs) among three TB techniques and to evaluate the effect on urinary and erectile function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Post hoc analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial among men with negative systematic biopsy (SB) and suspicion of PCa. INTERVENTION: In 234 patients, 3-T multiparametric MRI demonstrated PIRADS>/= 3 lesions, and patients were randomised 1:1:1 for TB: transrectal in-bore MRI TB (MRI-TB), transperineal MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion TB (FUS-TB), and transrectal cognitive TRUS TB (COG-TB). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: AEs (Clavien-Dindo) were compared using Pearson chi-square test. Univariate logistic regression tests were performed for the number of cores, biopsy approach, and usage of anticoagulants. The participants filled in baseline and 30-d postbiopsy International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaires. The delta between measurements was compared using one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were significant differences in minor AEs: 53% in MRI-TB, 71% in FUS-TB, and 85% in COG-TB (p<0.001). The number of cores was associated with AEs (odds ratio [OR] 1.11 per extra biopsy [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.06-1.17, p<0.001]). Anticoagulants were not associated with bleeding complications (OR 1.24 [95% CI 0.66-2.35, p=0.5]). Transrectal approach (MRI-TB+COG-TB) increased the risk of any AE (OR 2.54 [95% CI 1.16-5.77, p<0.05]) and nonsignificantly increased the risk of urinary tract infections (OR 3.69 [95% CI 0.46-168.4, p=0.3]). Biopsy did not impact urinary (DeltaIPSS 0.3, p=0.1) and erectile function (DeltaIIEF-5 -0.4, p=0.5). The main limitation was that additional SB was performed in FUS-TB and COG-TB, and was omitted in MRI-TB, making comparison difficult. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant difference in minor AEs among groups. An increase in the number of cores increased the overall risk of AEs. A low AE occurrence in MRI-TB was likely caused by the omission of SB. Prostate biopsy did not impact self-reported urinary and erectile functions. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we compared the complication rates of three techniques of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based targeted biopsy of the prostate. We found a significant difference in the occurrence of minor complication rates among three groups in favour of transrectal in-bore MRI targeted biopsy, likely caused by the omission of additional systematic biopsy in this group

Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies : A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique?

CONTEXT: The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies (MRI-GB) has changed the paradigm concerning prostate biopsies. Three techniques of MRI-GB are available: (1) in-bore MRI target biopsy (MRI-TB), (2) MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion (FUS-TB), and (3) cognitive registration (COG-TB). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether MRI-GB has increased detection rates of (clinically significant) prostate cancer (PCa) compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) in patients at risk for PCa, and which technique of MRI-GB has the highest detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist and START recommendations. The initial search identified 2562 studies and 43 were included in the meta-analysis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Among the included studies 11 used MRI-TB, 17 used FUS-TB, 11 used COG-TB, and four used a combination of techniques. In 34 studies concurrent TRUS-GB was performed. There was no significant difference between MRI-GB (all techniques combined) and TRUS-GB for overall PCa detection (relative risk [RR] 0.97 [0.90-1.07]). MRI-GB had higher detection rates of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) compared with TRUS-GB (RR 1.16 [1.02-1.32]), and a lower yield of insignificant PCa (RR 0.47 [0.35-0.63]). There was a significant advantage (p = 0.02) of MRI-TB compared with COG-TB for overall PCa detection. For overall PCa detection there was no significant advantage of MRI-TB compared with FUS-TB (p=0.13), and neither for FUS-TB compared with COG-TB (p=0.11). For csPCa detection there was no significant advantage of any one technique of MRI-GB. The impact of lesion characteristics such as size and localisation could not be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-GB had similar overall PCa detection rates compared with TRUS-GB, increased rates of csPCa, and decreased rates of insignificant PCa. MRI-TB has a superior overall PCa detection compared with COG-TB. FUS-TB and MRI-TB appear to have similar detection rates. Head-to-head comparisons of MRI-GB techniques are limited and are needed to confirm our findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our review shows that magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy detects more clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) and less insignificant PCa compared with systematic biopsy in men at risk for PCa

Is There Still a Need for Repeated Systematic Biopsies in Patients with Previous Negative Biopsies in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies of the Prostate?

Contains fulltext : 218778.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access

The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies

BACKGROUND: Guidelines advise multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) before repeat biopsy in patients with negative systematic biopsy (SB) and a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa), enabling MRI targeted biopsy (TB). No consensus exists regarding which of the three available techniques of TB should be preferred. OBJECTIVE: To compare detection rates of overall PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) for the three MRI-based TB techniques. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomised controlled trial, including 665 men with prior negative SB and a persistent suspicion of PCa, conducted between 2014 and 2017 in two nonacademic teaching hospitals and an academic hospital. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent 3-T mpMRI evaluated with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) version 2. If imaging demonstrated PIRADS >/=3 lesions, patients were randomised 1:1:1 for one TB technique: MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion TB (FUS-TB), cognitive registration TRUS TB (COG-TB), or in-bore MRI TB (MRI-TB). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary (overall PCa detection) and secondary (csPCa detection [Gleason score >/=3+4]) outcomes were compared using Pearson chi-square test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: On mpMRI, 234/665 (35%) patients had PIRADS >/=3 lesions and underwent TB. There were no significant differences in the detection rates of overall PCa (FUS-TB 49%, COG-TB 44%, MRI-TB 55%, p=0.4). PCa detection rate differences were -5% between FUS-TB and MRI-TB (p=0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -21% to 11%), 6% between FUS-TB and COG-TB (p=0.5, 95% CI -10% to 21%), and -11% between COG-TB and MRI-TB (p=0.17, 95% CI -26% to 5%). There were no significant differences in the detection rates of csPCa (FUS-TB 34%, COG-TB 33%, MRI-TB 33%, p>0.9). Differences in csPCa detection rates were 2% between FUS-TB and MRI-TB (p=0.8, 95% CI -13% to 16%), 1% between FUS-TB and COG-TB (p>0.9, 95% CI -14% to 16%), and 1% between COG-TB and MRI-TB (p>0.9, 95% CI -14% to 16%). The main study limitation was a low rate of PIRADS >/=3 lesions on mpMRI, causing underpowering for primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences in the detection rates of (cs)PCa among the three MRI-based TB techniques. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we compared the detection rates of (aggressive) prostate cancer among men with prior negative biopsies and a persistent suspicion of cancer using three different techniques of targeted biopsy based on magnetic resonance imaging. We found no significant differences in the detection rates of (aggressive) prostate cancer among the three techniques