Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Biopsy Alone for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Martha M C Elwenspoek, Athena L Sheppard, Matthew D F McInnes, Samuel W D Merriel, Edward W J Rowe, Richard J Bryant, Jenny L Donovan, Penny Whiting, Martha M C Elwenspoek, Athena L Sheppard, Matthew D F McInnes, Samuel W D Merriel, Edward W J Rowe, Richard J Bryant, Jenny L Donovan, Penny Whiting

Abstract

Importance: The current diagnostic pathway for patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) includes prostate biopsy. A large proportion of individuals who undergo biopsy have either no PCa or low-risk disease that does not require treatment. Unnecessary biopsies may potentially be avoided with prebiopsy imaging.

Objective: To compare the performance of systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy vs prebiopsy biparametric or multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) followed by targeted biopsy with or without systematic biopsy.

Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of recent reviews were searched through December 2018 for randomized clinical trials using the terms "prostate cancer" and "MRI."

Study selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing diagnostic pathways including prebiopsy MRI vs systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with a clinical suspicion of PCa.

Data extraction and synthesis: Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. All review stages were conducted by 2 reviewers.

Main outcomes and measures: Detection rate of clinically significant and insignificant PCa, number of biopsy procedures, number of biopsy cores taken, and complications.

Results: Seven high-quality trials (2582 patients) were included. Compared with systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy alone, MRI with or without targeted biopsy was associated with a 57% (95% CI, 2%-141%) improvement in the detection of clinically significant PCa, a 33% (95% CI, 23%-45%) potential reduction in the number of biopsy procedures, and a 77% (95% CI, 60%-93%) reduction in the number of cores taken per procedure. One trial showed reduced pain and bleeding adverse effects. Systematic sampling of the prostate in addition to the acquisition of targeted cores did not significantly improve the detection of clinically significant PCa compared with systematic biopsy alone.

Conclusions and relevance: In this meta-analysis, prebiopsy MRI combined with targeted biopsy vs systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy alone was associated with improved detection of clinically significant PCa, despite substantial heterogeneity among trials. Prebiopsy MRI was associated with a reduced number of individual biopsy cores taken per procedure and with reduced adverse effects, and it potentially prevented unnecessary biopsies in some individuals. This evidence supports implementation of prebiopsy MRI into diagnostic pathways for suspected PCa.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bryant reported grants from Cancer Research UK Clinician Scientist Fellowship during the conduct of the study and grants from UCare Grant outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Three Diagnostic Pathways Used to…
Figure 1.. Three Diagnostic Pathways Used to Detect Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
Flowcharts show, from left to right, a transrectal ultrasonography–guided systematic biopsy alone pathway (control), in which all patients with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer undergo this procedure; a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus targeted biopsy pathway, in which individuals with a positive prebiopsy MRI undergo a transrectal ultrasonography–guided targeted biopsy alone; and an MRI plus targeted and systematic biopsy pathway, in which individuals with positive prebiopsy MRI findings undergo a transrectal ultrasonography–guided targeted biopsy combined with a systematic biopsy. In both hypothetical MRI pathways, individuals with negative MRI findings do not undergo a prostate biopsy procedure.
Figure 2.. Diagram of Inclusion Criteria for…
Figure 2.. Diagram of Inclusion Criteria for Randomized Clinical Trials
Figure 3.. Study Designs of the Included…
Figure 3.. Study Designs of the Included Randomized Clinical Trials
Designs A and B allowed for sufficient data extraction to analyze the systematic biopsy alone pathway vs the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus targeted biopsy pathway. Design C allowed for sufficient data extraction of the systematic biopsy alone and the MRI plus targeted and systematic biopsy pathways, but not the MRI plus targeted biopsy pathway because separate data were not reported for the content of targeted and systematic biopsy prostate cores. Designs D and E allowed for sufficient data extraction of the systematic biopsy alone, MRI plus targeted and systematic biopsy, and MRI plus targeted biopsy pathways, except for the study by Panebianco et al, which did not separately report the content of targeted and systematic biopsy prostate cores. Randomized clinical trials with design E performed targeted biopsies on the basis of digital rectal examination or ultrasonography findings, which may have resulted in an improved prostate cancer detection in the systematic biopsy alone pathway compared with other study designs.
Figure 4.. Detection Rate of Clinically Significant…
Figure 4.. Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
Risk ratios (RRs) are represented by boxes, with the size of each box representing its weight. Horizontal lines represent 95% CIs. Diamonds represent combined-effect estimates and their 95% CIs. MRI indicates magnetic resonance imaging.

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):-. doi:10.3322/caac.21442
    1. Bell KJ, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: a systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(7):1749-1757. doi:10.1002/ijc.29538
    1. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, et al. ; START Consortium . Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol. 2013;64(4):544-552. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030
    1. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. ; ProtecT Study Group . Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1425-1437. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1606221
    1. Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, et al. ; US Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;319(18):1901-1913. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.3710
    1. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. ; European Association of Urology . EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent—update 2013. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):124-137. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management (clinical guideline 175). . Published January 2014. Accessed March 21, 2019.
    1. Shah TT, To WKL, Ahmed HU. Magnetic resonance imaging in the early detection of prostate cancer and review of the literature on magnetic resonance imaging-stratified clinical pathways. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2017;17(12):1159-1168. doi:10.1080/14737140.2017.1383899
    1. Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. . Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):41-49. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038
    1. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. . Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876-892. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049
    1. Egbers N, Schwenke C, Maxeiner A, Teichgräber U, Franiel T. MRI-guided core needle biopsy of the prostate: acceptance and side effects. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015;21(3):215-221. doi:10.5152/dir.2014.14372
    1. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. ; PROMIS study group . Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-822. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
    1. Brizmohun Appayya M, Adshead J, Ahmed HU, et al. . National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection: recommendations from a UK consensus meeting. BJU Int. 2018;122(1):13-25. doi:10.1111/bju.14361
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. . Updated March 2011. Accessed January 8, 2019.
    1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. . Published January 2009. Accessed January 8, 2019.
    1. Elwenspoek MMC. Systematic review protocol: the multiparameter MRI pathway in the diagnosis of clinical significant prostate cancer. . Published November 8, 2018. Updated June 6, 2019. Accessed June 24, 2019.
    1. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan: a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
    1. Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, Savović J, et al. . A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(suppl 1):29-31. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD201601.
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
    1. Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17(8):857-872. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<857::AID-SIM777>;2-E
    1. StataCorp Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2017.
    1. Harris R, Bradburn M, Deeks JJ, Sterne JAC. Metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2008;8(1):3-28. doi:10.1177/1536867X0800800102
    1. Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health. 2014;72(1):39. doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39
    1. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. . A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):149-156. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.041
    1. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. ; PRECISION Study Group Collaborators . MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767-1777. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
    1. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al. . Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(1):17.e1-17.e7. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.09.013
    1. Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, et al. . Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(5):W876-W881. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.6829
    1. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. . Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):282-288. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.041
    1. Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Pääkkö E, et al. . Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):419-425. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.05.024
    1. Plata-Bello A, Gonzalez Perez L, Díaz Flores L, et al. . Image-based diagnosis of prostate cancer (DIMCAPRO study): randomized prospective study in biopsy-naïve population comparing diagnosis standard pathway vs an image-guided approach using mpMRI and target biopsy. J Urol. 2018;199(4S):e609. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.1468
    1. Drost FJH, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. . MRI pathway and TRUS-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(5):CD012663. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012663
    1. Manfredi M, Costa Moretti TB, Emberton M, Villers A, Valerio M. MRI/TRUS fusion software-based targeted biopsy: the new standard of care? Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2015;67(3):233-246. .
    1. Barnett CL, Davenport MS, Montgomery JS, Wei JT, Montie JE, Denton BT. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122(1):50-58. doi:10.1111/bju.14151
    1. Faria R, Soares MO, Spackman E, et al. . Optimising the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the prostate MR imaging study (PROMIS). Eur Urol. 2018;73(1):23-30. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.018
    1. Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, et al. . Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus. 2017:S2405-4569(17)30266-3. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010
    1. Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A, et al. . Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int. 2016;118(1):35-43. doi:10.1111/bju.13327
    1. Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. . The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS™ for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol. 2017;198(3):575-582. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.130

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren