Qiyou Wu, Xiang Tu, Jinjiang Jiang, Jianjun Ye, Tianhai Lin, Zhenhua Liu, Lu Yang, Shi Qiu, Bo Tang, Yige Bao, Qiang Wei
{"title":"同侧系统活检联合靶向活检是双侧系统活检联合靶向活检的最佳替代品：一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Qiyou Wu, Xiang Tu, Jinjiang Jiang, Jianjun Ye, Tianhai Lin, Zhenhua Liu, Lu Yang, Shi Qiu, Bo Tang, Yige Bao, Qiang Wei","doi":"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.11.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The current standard prostate biopsy method, which combine systematic biopsy (SB) with targeted biopsy (TB), has shortcomings such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. To evaluate the effectiveness of ipsilateral systematic biopsy (ips-SB) combined with targeted biopsy (ips-SB+TB) and contralateral SB (con-SB) combined with TB (con-SB+TB) as potential alternatives to SB+TB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Cochrane, Embase, Ovid, and PubMed databases until September 2024. 2,732 references were identified, and 11 records were included.</p><p><strong>Main findings: </strong>The study included a total of 5,249 patients and revealed that ips-SB+TB detected slightly less PCa than SB+TB with a relative risk (RR) of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91, 1.00), P = 0.05. In terms of csPCa detection, ips-SB+TB showed a comparable detection rate with SB+TB (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94, 1.01], P = 0.60). There was a statistically significant difference in csPCa detection between con-SB+TB and SB+TB (RR 0.92 [95% CI 0.86, 0.99], P = 0.02). The detection rates of clinically insignificant PCa (ciPCa) were comparable between con-SB+TB vs. SB+TB (con-SB+TB vs. SB+TB: RR 0.90 [95% CI 0.79, 1.04], P = 0.15). However, fewer ciPCa cases were detected in ips-SB+TB compared to SB+TB (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75, 0.99], P = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this review, our analysis highlights ips-SB+TB has the comparable detection efficiency of PCa and csPCa compared to SB+TB, and its potential to be the substitute of the SB+TB with less cores and less detection of ciPCa.</p>","PeriodicalId":23408,"journal":{"name":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is ipsilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy the optimal substitute for bilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Qiyou Wu, Xiang Tu, Jinjiang Jiang, Jianjun Ye, Tianhai Lin, Zhenhua Liu, Lu Yang, Shi Qiu, Bo Tang, Yige Bao, Qiang Wei\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.11.023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The current standard prostate biopsy method, which combine systematic biopsy (SB) with targeted biopsy (TB), has shortcomings such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. To evaluate the effectiveness of ipsilateral systematic biopsy (ips-SB) combined with targeted biopsy (ips-SB+TB) and contralateral SB (con-SB) combined with TB (con-SB+TB) as potential alternatives to SB+TB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Cochrane, Embase, Ovid, and PubMed databases until September 2024. 2,732 references were identified, and 11 records were included.</p><p><strong>Main findings: </strong>The study included a total of 5,249 patients and revealed that ips-SB+TB detected slightly less PCa than SB+TB with a relative risk (RR) of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91, 1.00), P = 0.05. In terms of csPCa detection, ips-SB+TB showed a comparable detection rate with SB+TB (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94, 1.01], P = 0.60). There was a statistically significant difference in csPCa detection between con-SB+TB and SB+TB (RR 0.92 [95% CI 0.86, 0.99], P = 0.02). The detection rates of clinically insignificant PCa (ciPCa) were comparable between con-SB+TB vs. SB+TB (con-SB+TB vs. SB+TB: RR 0.90 [95% CI 0.79, 1.04], P = 0.15). However, fewer ciPCa cases were detected in ips-SB+TB compared to SB+TB (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75, 0.99], P = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this review, our analysis highlights ips-SB+TB has the comparable detection efficiency of PCa and csPCa compared to SB+TB, and its potential to be the substitute of the SB+TB with less cores and less detection of ciPCa.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23408,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.11.023\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologic Oncology-seminars and Original Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.11.023","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景：目前标准的前列腺活检方法将系统性活检（SB）与靶向活检（TB）相结合，存在过度诊断、过度治疗等缺点。评估同侧系统活检（ips-SB）联合靶向活检（ips-SB+TB）和对侧SB（对照-SB）联合TB（对照-SB+TB）作为SB+TB的潜在替代方案的有效性。方法：到2024年9月，在Cochrane、Embase、Ovid和PubMed数据库中进行全面的文献检索。共识别文献2732篇，纳入记录11条。主要发现：本研究共纳入5249例患者，发现ips-SB+TB检出的PCa略低于SB+TB，相对危险度（RR）为0.95 (95% CI 0.91, 1.00), P = 0.05。在csPCa检出率方面，ips-SB+TB与SB+TB检出率相当（RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94, 1.01], P = 0.60）。con-SB+TB与SB+TB的csPCa检出率差异有统计学意义（RR 0.92 [95% CI 0.86, 0.99], P = 0.02）。临床不显著PCa （ciPCa）检出率在con-SB+TB与SB+TB之间具有可比性（con-SB+TB与SB+TB: RR 0.90 [95% CI 0.79, 1.04], P = 0.15）。然而，与SB+TB相比，ips-SB+TB中检测到的ciPCa病例较少（RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75, 0.99], P = 0.04）。结论：与SB+TB相比，ips-SB+TB对PCa和csPCa的检测效率相当，具有较少核数和较少ciPCa检测的SB+TB的替代潜力。
Is ipsilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy the optimal substitute for bilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: The current standard prostate biopsy method, which combine systematic biopsy (SB) with targeted biopsy (TB), has shortcomings such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. To evaluate the effectiveness of ipsilateral systematic biopsy (ips-SB) combined with targeted biopsy (ips-SB+TB) and contralateral SB (con-SB) combined with TB (con-SB+TB) as potential alternatives to SB+TB.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Cochrane, Embase, Ovid, and PubMed databases until September 2024. 2,732 references were identified, and 11 records were included.
Main findings: The study included a total of 5,249 patients and revealed that ips-SB+TB detected slightly less PCa than SB+TB with a relative risk (RR) of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91, 1.00), P = 0.05. In terms of csPCa detection, ips-SB+TB showed a comparable detection rate with SB+TB (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94, 1.01], P = 0.60). There was a statistically significant difference in csPCa detection between con-SB+TB and SB+TB (RR 0.92 [95% CI 0.86, 0.99], P = 0.02). The detection rates of clinically insignificant PCa (ciPCa) were comparable between con-SB+TB vs. SB+TB (con-SB+TB vs. SB+TB: RR 0.90 [95% CI 0.79, 1.04], P = 0.15). However, fewer ciPCa cases were detected in ips-SB+TB compared to SB+TB (RR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75, 0.99], P = 0.04).
Conclusions: In this review, our analysis highlights ips-SB+TB has the comparable detection efficiency of PCa and csPCa compared to SB+TB, and its potential to be the substitute of the SB+TB with less cores and less detection of ciPCa.
期刊介绍：
Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations is the official journal of the Society of Urologic Oncology. The journal publishes practical, timely, and relevant clinical and basic science research articles which address any aspect of urologic oncology. Each issue comprises original research, news and topics, survey articles providing short commentaries on other important articles in the urologic oncology literature, and reviews including an in-depth Seminar examining a specific clinical dilemma. The journal periodically publishes supplement issues devoted to areas of current interest to the urologic oncology community. Articles published are of interest to researchers and the clinicians involved in the practice of urologic oncology including urologists, oncologists, and radiologists.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
