Department of Urology, Fundació Puigvert, Autonoma University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Department of Urology, APHM, North Academic Hospital, Marseille, France.
Eur Urol Oncol. 2023 Dec;6(6):621-628. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.08.001. Epub 2023 Aug 25.
It is unclear whether a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted transperineal (TP) biopsy can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).
To compare the MRI-targeted TP and transrectal (TR) approaches for csPCa detection.
A literature search was conducted using the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify reports published until February 2023. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies. The primary outcome was the detection of csPCa (Gleason grade group ≥2). Sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate csPCa detection rates according to tumor location, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, and type of fusion (cognitive or software based).
Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria, and data from 3522 and 5140 patients who underwent, respectively, TR and TP MRI-targeted biopsies were reviewed. No statistically significant difference in the detection of csPCa was observed between the TR and TP approaches (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.25; p = 0.1). When stratifying patients according to lesion location, the TP approach was associated with higher csPCa detection in case of anterior (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.46-3.22; p < 0.001) and apical (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.14-3.03; p = 0.01) lesions. In the subgroup analysis based on PI-RADS score, the TP approach was associated with higher csPCa detection (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.07-2.29; p = 0.02) in PI-RADS 4 lesions. Conversely, no difference was found in PI-RADS 3 and 5 lesions (p > 0.05). The main limitation was the retrospective design of most included studies.
No significant association was found between the prostate biopsy approach and csPCa detection rate when we considered all biopsy indications. The TP approach provides a detection advantage in anterior and apical tumors, arguing for a preferred use of the TP approach in these lesion locations.
The transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy approach appears to be more effective only for selected lesions. No clear benefit was seen for the transperineal approach in the overall population.
目前尚不清楚磁共振成像(MRI)靶向经会阴(TP)活检是否能提高临床显著前列腺癌(csPCa)的检出率。
比较 MRI 靶向经会阴和经直肠(TR)方法在 csPCa 检测中的应用。
使用 PubMed/Medline、Embase 和 Web of Science 数据库进行文献检索,以确定截至 2023 年 2 月发表的报告。遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的 Preferred Reporting Items 指南来确定合格的研究。主要结局是检测 csPCa(Gleason 分级组≥2)。进行敏感性分析,根据肿瘤位置、前列腺成像报告和数据系统(PI-RADS)评分以及融合类型(认知或基于软件)来研究 csPCa 检出率。
11 项研究符合纳入标准,分别对接受 TR 和 TP MRI 靶向活检的 3522 例和 5140 例患者的数据进行了回顾。TR 和 TP 方法在 csPCa 的检出率方面无统计学差异(比值比 [OR] 1.11,95%置信区间 [CI] 0.98-1.25;p=0.1)。当根据病变位置对患者进行分层时,TP 方法在前部(OR 2.17,95%CI 1.46-3.22;p<0.001)和顶部(OR 1.86,95%CI 1.14-3.03;p=0.01)病变中与更高的 csPCa 检出率相关。基于 PI-RADS 评分的亚组分析显示,TP 方法在 PI-RADS 4 病变中与更高的 csPCa 检出率相关(OR 1.57,95%CI 1.07-2.29;p=0.02)。而在 PI-RADS 3 和 5 病变中则无差异(p>0.05)。主要限制是大多数纳入研究的回顾性设计。
当考虑所有活检指征时,前列腺活检方法与 csPCa 检出率之间未发现显著关联。TP 方法在前部和顶部肿瘤中有更高的检出优势,因此在这些病变位置中更倾向于使用 TP 方法。
经会阴磁共振成像靶向前列腺活检方法似乎仅对某些特定病变更有效。在总体人群中,经会阴方法没有明显获益。