Pirola Giacomo Maria, Castellani Daniele, Orecchia Luca, Giulioni Carlo, Gubbiotti Marilena, Rubilotta Emanuele, Maggi Martina, Teoh Jeremy Yuen-Chun, Gauhar Vineet, Naselli Angelo
Department of Urology, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, 20123 Milano, Italy.
Department of Urology, University Hospital "Ospedali Riuniti", Polytechnic University of Marche Region, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Jun 30;15(13):3443. doi: 10.3390/cancers15133443.
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 -values. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 software by Cochrane Collaboration. The quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, using RoB 2 for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for retrospective and nonrandomized ones.
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, = 0.95). Study heterogeneity was low (I2 55%).
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.
我们旨在找出经会阴软件辅助融合活检(saFB)与认知融合活检(cFB)在临床显著前列腺癌(csPCa)检测率方面的潜在差异。
根据PICOS标准,通过检索PubMed、EMBASE和Scopus进行文献系统综述,以确定比较研究。使用Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel方法和随机效应模型汇总癌症检测率和并发症发生率,并报告为比值比(OR)、95%置信区间(CI)和P值。由Cochrane协作网使用Review Manager(RevMan)5.4软件进行荟萃分析。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具对纳入研究进行质量评估,随机研究使用RoB 2,回顾性和非随机研究使用ROBINS-I。
八项研究纳入荟萃分析,其中基于软件的活检有1149例,认知融合活检有963例。两组csPCa的检测率相似(OR 1.01,95% CI 0.74 - 1.37,P = 0.95)。研究异质性较低(I² 55%)。
就csPCa检测率而言,没有实际证据表明saFB优于cFB。操作者经验和软件可用性可能会促使选择一种融合技术而非另一种。