[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    August 7, 2019

    Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Biopsy Alone for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    Author Affiliations
    • 1National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
    • 2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    • 3Department of Radiology, The Ottawa Hospital, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • 4Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • 5Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    • 6College of Medicine & Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom
    • 7Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom
    • 8Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    • 9Department of Urology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom
    JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e198427. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8427
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  Is prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging combined with targeted biopsy associated with improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasonography–guided systematic prostate biopsy alone?

    Findings  This systematic review and meta-analysis of 7 randomized clinical trials (2582 patients) demonstrates that prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging combined with targeted biopsy is associated with improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and reduced numbers of biopsy cores per procedure, while potentially avoiding unnecessary biopsies.

    Meaning  These findings support the introduction of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging into the diagnostic pathway for biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer.


    Importance  The current diagnostic pathway for patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) includes prostate biopsy. A large proportion of individuals who undergo biopsy have either no PCa or low-risk disease that does not require treatment. Unnecessary biopsies may potentially be avoided with prebiopsy imaging.

    Objective  To compare the performance of systematic transrectal ultrasonography–guided prostate biopsy vs prebiopsy biparametric or multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) followed by targeted biopsy with or without systematic biopsy.

    Data Sources  MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of recent reviews were searched through December 2018 for randomized clinical trials using the terms “prostate cancer” and “MRI.”

    Study Selection  Randomized clinical trials comparing diagnostic pathways including prebiopsy MRI vs systematic transrectal ultrasonography–guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with a clinical suspicion of PCa.

    Data Extraction and Synthesis  Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. All review stages were conducted by 2 reviewers.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Detection rate of clinically significant and insignificant PCa, number of biopsy procedures, number of biopsy cores taken, and complications.

    Results  Seven high-quality trials (2582 patients) were included. Compared with systematic transrectal ultrasonography–guided biopsy alone, MRI with or without targeted biopsy was associated with a 57% (95% CI, 2%-141%) improvement in the detection of clinically significant PCa, a 33% (95% CI, 23%-45%) potential reduction in the number of biopsy procedures, and a 77% (95% CI, 60%-93%) reduction in the number of cores taken per procedure. One trial showed reduced pain and bleeding adverse effects. Systematic sampling of the prostate in addition to the acquisition of targeted cores did not significantly improve the detection of clinically significant PCa compared with systematic biopsy alone.

    Conclusions and Relevance  In this meta-analysis, prebiopsy MRI combined with targeted biopsy vs systematic transrectal ultrasonography–guided biopsy alone was associated with improved detection of clinically significant PCa, despite substantial heterogeneity among trials. Prebiopsy MRI was associated with a reduced number of individual biopsy cores taken per procedure and with reduced adverse effects, and it potentially prevented unnecessary biopsies in some individuals. This evidence supports implementation of prebiopsy MRI into diagnostic pathways for suspected PCa.