Diagnostic yield of fusion magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy versus cognitive-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive patients: a head-to-head randomized controlled trial

MRI software and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging localises cancer in the prostate, allowing for a targeted biopsy with or without transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy. Targeted biopsy methods include cognitive fusion, where prostate lesions suspicious on magnetic resonance imaging are targeted visually during live ultrasound, and software fusion, where computer software overlays the magnetic resonance imaging image onto the ultrasound in real time. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of software fusion technologies compared with cognitive fusion biopsy are uncertain.

Objectives

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of software fusion biopsy technologies in people with suspected localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, clinical efficacy and practical implementation of nine software fusion devices compared to cognitive fusion biopsies, and with each other, in people with suspected prostate cancer. Comprehensive searches including MEDLINE, and Embase were conducted up to August 2022 to identify studies which compared software fusion and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer. Risk of bias was assessed with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-comparative tool. A network meta-analysis comparing software and cognitive fusion with or without concomitant systematic biopsy, and systematic biopsy alone was conducted. Additional outcomes, including safety and usability, were synthesised narratively. A de novo decision model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of targeted software fusion biopsy relative to cognitive fusion biopsy with or without concomitant systematic biopsy for prostate cancer identification in biopsy-naive people. Scenario analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the results to variation in the model data sources and alternative assumptions.

Results

Twenty-three studies (3773 patients with software fusion, 2154 cognitive fusion) were included, of which 13 informed the main meta-analyses. Evidence was available for seven of the nine fusion devices specified in the protocol and at high risk of bias. The meta-analyses show that patients undergoing software fusion biopsy may have: (1) a lower probability of being classified as not having cancer, (2) similar probability of being classified as having non-clinically significant cancer (International Society of Urological Pathology grade 1) and (3) higher probability of being classified at higher International Society of Urological Pathology grades, particularly International Society of Urological Pathology 2. Similar results were obtained when comparing between same biopsy methods where both were combined with systematic biopsy. Evidence was insufficient to conclude whether any individual devices were superior to cognitive fusion, or whether some software fusion technologies were superior to others. Uncertainty in the relative diagnostic accuracy of software fusion versus cognitive fusion reduce the strength of any statements on its cost-effectiveness. The economic analysis suggests incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for software fusion biopsy versus cognitive fusion are within the bounds of cost-effectiveness (£1826 and £5623 per additional quality-adjusted life-year with or with concomitant systematic biopsy, respectively), but this finding needs cautious interpretation.

Limitations

There was insufficient evidence to explore the impact of effect modifiers.

Conclusions

Software fusion biopsies may be associated with increased cancer detection in relation to cognitive fusion biopsies, but the evidence is at high risk of bias. Sufficiently powered, high-quality studies are required. Cost-effectiveness results should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the diagnostic accuracy evidence.

Study registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022329259.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135477) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 61. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further information.

Prostate cancer detection and complications of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive registration, software-assisted image fusion or in-bore guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Three primary strategies for MRI-targeted biopsies (TB) are available: Cognitive TB (COG-TB), MRI-US Fusion TB (FUS-TB), and In Bore TB (IB-TB). Despite nearly a decade of practice, a consensus on the preferred approach is lacking, with previous studies showing comparable PCa detection rates among the three methods.

METHODS

We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2014 to 2023, to identify studies comparing at least two of the three methods and reporting clinically significant PCa (csPCa) detection rates. The primary and secondary outcomes were to compare the csPCa and insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa, ISUP GG 1) detection rates between TB techniques. The tertiary outcome was to compare the complication rate between TB techniques. Detection rates were pooled using random-effect models. Planned sensitivity analyses included subgroup analysis according to the definition of csPCa and positive MRI, previous biopsy status, biopsy route, prostate volume, and lesion characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of twenty studies, involving 4928 patients, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis unveiled comparable csPCa detection rates among COG-TB (0.37), FUS-TB (0.39), and IB-TB (0.47). iPCa detection rate was also similar between TB techniques (COG-TB: 0.12, FUS-TB: 0.17, IB-TB: 0.18). All preplanned sensitivity analyses were conducted and did not show any statistically significant difference in the detection of csPCa between TB methods. Complication rates, however, were infrequently reported, and when available, no statistically significant differences were observed among the techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

This unique study, exclusively focusing on comparative research, indicates no significant differences in csPCa and iPCa detection rates between COG-TB, FUS-TB, and IB-TB. Decisions between these techniques may extend beyond diagnostic accuracy, considering factors such as resource availability and operator preferences. Well-designed prospective studies are warranted to refine our understanding of the optimal approach for TB in diverse clinical scenarios.

Performance of cognitive vs. image-guided fusion biopsy for detection of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer in a multiethnic population

PURPOSE

Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy remains the most used method for the detection of prostate cancer. We recently reported that detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (cs-CaP) using image-guided fusion biopsies (IGFB) varied by race/ethnicity, which calls for further comparison between cognitive fusion biopsy (CFB) and IGFB among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic populations. Therefore, the aim of our study is to compare the rates of detection of cs-CaP and overall CaP by CFB and IGFB in a multiethnic community.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional review of men who underwent MRI-transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy at our diverse, urban academic medical center. Agreement and discordance between fusion biopsies and systematic biopsies for detection of cs-CaP and overall CaP were determined using Kappa statistics. Univariate and multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to find associations between fusion modalities and prostate cancer detection.

RESULTS

In total, 710 men underwent fusion prostate biopsies between December 2015 and June 2021. Upon univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, there was no significant association between IGFB vs. CFB and risk of overall CaP (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.36-1.21, P = 0.18) or cs-CaP (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.30-1.08, P = 0.09). We found moderate agreement between fusion and systematic biopsies for both CFB (κ = 0.56) and IGFB (κ = 0.52) in cs-CaP.

CONCLUSIONS

CFB and IGFB offer similar detection rates of cs-CaP in a multiethnic population. CFB represents an effective and accessible means of accurately diagnosing prostate cancer.

Superior detection of significant prostate cancer by transperineal prostate biopsy using MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion image guidance over cognitive registration

BACKGROUND

The BioJet system allows the fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images with real-time transrectal ultrasonography to accurately direct biopsy needles to the target lesions. To date, the superiority of targeted biopsy using the BioJet system over cognitive registration remains unknown.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 171 biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (2.5-20 ng/mL) and MRI-positive lesions; 74 and 97 men underwent a four-core targeted biopsy per MRI-positive target lesion and a 14-core systematic biopsy transperineally using the BioJet system and cognitive registration, respectively. Detection rates of significant cancer, defined as grade group ≥ 2 or maximum cancer length ≥ 5 mm, were compared between the BioJet system and cognitive registration using propensity score matching and a multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching (67 men for each group), the detection rates of significant cancer were significantly higher in the BioJet group than in the cognitive group for both targeted (76% vs. 46%, P = 0.002) and systematic (70% vs. 46%, P = 0.018) biopsy. Multivariate analysis of the entire cohort also showed that the BioJet system was independently associated with significant cancer detection by targeted and systematic biopsy (P < 0.01), along with a higher prostate-specific antigen density and a higher prostate imaging reporting and data system score.

CONCLUSIONS

Transperineal prostate biopsy using the BioJet system is superior to cognitive registration in detecting significant cancer for targeted and systematic biopsies.

Frequency of Biopsy and Tumor Grade Before vs After Introduction of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Importance

In randomized clinical trials (RCTs), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before prostate biopsy has been associated with fewer biopsies, decreased detection of Gleason score 6 cancers, and increased detection of Gleason score 7 or higher cancers.

Objective

To study whether MRI of the prostate before the decision to biopsy is associated with biopsy frequency and distribution of Gleason score in clinical practice.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a retrospective, population-based cohort study of men in Jönköping Region, Sweden. Men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level measured between November 2011 and 2020 were monitored until January 31, 2021. Men with known prostate cancer were excluded. Data analysis was performed from July to December 2022.

Exposures

Data on repeated PSA measures, prostate biopsies, and MRI prostate were extracted from health care records, and cancer characteristics were obtained from The National Prostate Cancer Register.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The proportions of men who underwent prostate biopsy and risk of Gleason score 6 or Gleason score 7 or higher cancer and negative biopsy before and after introduction of MRI were calculated.

Results

In this cohort study of 23 802 men (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [13.6] years) who underwent PSA testing, when the use of MRI increased, fewer biopsies were performed (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97) and the odds of detecting Gleason score 6 cancer decreased (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33-0.64), whereas the odds of detecting Gleason score 7 or higher cancer increased (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.50).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, the introduction of MRI to clinical practice was associated with a decreased proportion of men who underwent a biopsy and decreased detection of Gleason score 6 cancer but increased detection of Gleason score 7 or higher cancer. These clinical data support the use of prostate MRI before biopsy in an effort to avoid unnecessary biopsies.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Free-Hand and Fixed-Arm Spatial Tracking Methodologies in Software-Guided MRI-TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy Platforms

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cancer detection rate (CDR) between the 2 dominant spatial tracking methodologies in software-guided MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (SGF-Bx) platforms: fixed-arm and free-hand.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on published primary analyses of prospective trials and cohort studies that enrolled biopsy-naïve patients for SFG-Bx. Inclusion criteria included the use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) v2.0 or later and the targeting of lesions graded as PI-RADS 3 or higher. Random effects models were used to assess the overall prostate cancer (PCa) CDR and the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) CDR for both platforms. csPCa was standardized to a definition of Gleason Grade Group 2 or higher when possible. Subgroup analysis was performed by stratifying studies into the average number of cores taken per lesion.

RESULTS

The PCa CDR was 0.674 for free-hand systems and 0.681 for fixed-arm systems. The csPCa CDR was 0.492 for free-hand systems and 0.500 for fixed-hand systems. There was no significant difference between free-hand and fixed-arm cancer detection rates for both overall PCa (P = .88) and csPCa (P = .90). Subgroup analyses revealed significant PCa CDR and csPCa CDR differences (P < .001) between free-hand and fixed-arm platforms only when 2 cores per lesion were taken, in favor of fixed-arm platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

Fixed-arm platforms performed similarly in cancer detection to free-hand platforms but show a minor benefit on fewer samples. While tracking methodology differences appear subtle, further investigation into the clinical impact of platform-specific features are warranted.