Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-stratified Clinical Pathways and Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy Pathway for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Context: Recent studies suggested that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) followed by targeted biopsy ("MRI-stratified pathway") detects more clinically significant prostate cancers (csPCa) than the systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) pathway, but controversy persists. Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were recently published, enabling generation of higher-level evidence to evaluate this hypothesis.

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the detection rates of csPCa in the MRI-stratified pathway and the systematic TRUS-Bx pathway in patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa).

Evidence acquisition: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched up to March 18, 2019. RCTs reporting csPCa detection rates of both pathways in patients with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer were included. Relative csPCa detection rates of the MRI-stratified pathway were pooled using random-effect model. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. A comparison of detection rates of clinically insignificant PCa (cisPCa) and any PCa was also performed.

Evidence synthesis: Nine RCTs (2908 patients) were included. The MRI-stratified pathway detected more csPCa than the TRUS-Bx pathway (relative detection rate 1.45 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.09-1.92] for all patients, and 1.42 [95% CI 1.02-1.97] and 1.60 [95% CI 1.01-2.54] for biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy patients, respectively). Detection rates were not significantly different between pathways for cisPCa (0.89 [95% CI 0.49-1.62]), but higher in the MRI-stratified pathway for the detection of any PCa (1.39 [95% CI 1.05-1.84]).

Conclusions: The MRI-stratified pathway detected more csPCa than the systematic TRUS-guided biopsy pathway in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa, for both biopsy-naïve patients and those with prior negative biopsy. The detection rate of any PCa was higher in the MRI-stratified pathway, but not significantly different from that of cisPCa.

Patient summary: Our meta-analysis of clinical trials shows that the magnetic resonance imaging-stratified pathway detects more clinically significant prostate cancers than the transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy pathway in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer.

Keywords: Biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Meta-analysis; Prostate cancer; Systematic review; Targeted biopsy.

Fig. 1 −

Flow diagram showing the study selection process. MRI = magnetic resonance imaging.

Fig. 2 −

Forest plots of relative detection rate of clinically significant, clinically insignificant, and any prostate cancer in the MRI-stratified pathway and the systematic TRUS-guided biopsy pathway. A relative detection rate of >1 indicates that the MRI-stratified pathway detects more cancers, while a rate of <1 means that the MRI-stratified pathway detects fewer cancers than the systematic TRUS-guided biopsy pathway. Bx = biopsy; CI = confidence interval; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; RR = risk ratio; TRUS = transrectal ultrasound.

Fig. 3 −

Summary chart of risk of bias assessment for included studies using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2 tool).