Приказ основних података о документу

dc.creatorBass, Edward J.
dc.creatorPantović, Ana
dc.creatorConnor, Martin J.
dc.creatorLoeb, Stacy
dc.creatorRastinehad, Ardeshir R.
dc.creatorWinkler, Mathias H.
dc.creatorGabe, Rhian
dc.creatorAhmed, Hashim U.
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-25T10:24:17Z
dc.date.available2021-10-25T10:24:17Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.issn1365-7852
dc.identifier.urihttp://rimi.imi.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1169
dc.description.abstractBackground: Multiparametric MRI localizes cancer in the prostate, allowing for MRI guided biopsy (MRI-GB) 43 alongside transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-GB). Three MRI-GB approaches exist; visual estimation (COG-TB); fusion software-assisted (FUS-TB) and MRI ‘in-bore’ biopsy (IB-TB). It is unknown whether any of these are superior. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions. First, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Second, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. Third, whether any MRI-GB strategy is superior at detecting csPCa. Methods: A systematic literature review from 2015 to 2019 was performed in accordance with the START recommendations. Studies reporting PCa detection rates, employing MRI-GB and TRUS-GB were included and evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. 1553 studies were found, of which 43 were included in the meta-analysis. Results: For csPCa, MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB (0.83 vs. 0.63 [p = 0.02]). MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. No MRI-GB technique was superior at detecting csPCa (IB-TB 0.87; COG TB 0.81; FUS-TB 0.81, [p = 0.55]). There was significant heterogeneity observed between the included studies. Conclusions: In patients with suspected PCa on MRI, MRI-GB offers superior rates of csPCa detection and reduces detection of insignificant PCa compared to TRUS-GB. No individual MRI-GB technique was found to be better in csPCa detection. Prospective adequately powered randomized controlled trials are required.
dc.publisherSpringer Nature
dc.relationHA is supported by the Wellcome Trust via a Senior Clinical Research Fellowship. Grant code: 204998/Z/16/Z
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceProstate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases
dc.titleDiagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.licenseBY
dc.citation.epage179
dc.citation.issue2
dc.citation.spage174
dc.citation.volume25
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/s41391-021-00449-7
dc.identifier.fulltexthttp://rimi.imi.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/2517/Diagnostic_accuracy_of_magnetic_resonance_pub_2021.pdf
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Документи

Thumbnail

Овај документ се појављује у следећим колекцијама

Приказ основних података о документу