Transperineal US-MRI Fusion-Guided Biopsy for the Detection of Clinical Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cognitive and Software-Assisted Technique

Author:

Pirola Giacomo Maria1ORCID,Castellani Daniele2ORCID,Orecchia Luca3ORCID,Giulioni Carlo2ORCID,Gubbiotti Marilena4,Rubilotta Emanuele5,Maggi Martina6ORCID,Teoh Jeremy Yuen-Chun7ORCID,Gauhar Vineet8ORCID,Naselli Angelo1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Urology, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, 20123 Milano, Italy

2. Department of Urology, University Hospital “Ospedali Riuniti”, Polytechnic University of Marche Region, 60131 Ancona, Italy

3. Urology Unit, Fondazione PTV Policlinico Tor Vergata University Hospital, 00133 Rome, Italy

4. Department of Urology, Usl Toscana Sud Est, San Donato Hospital, 52100 Arezzo, Italy

5. Department of Urology, A.O.U.I. Verona University, 37129 Verona, Italy

6. Maternal Infant and Urologic Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy

7. Department of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Center, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

8. Department of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore 119074, Singapore

Abstract

Introduction: 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). Methods: 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 p-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. Results: 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, p = 0.95). Study heterogeneity was low (I2 55%). Conclusion: 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.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3