Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Micro- Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Micro-ultrasound is a novel, high-resolution imaging modality that aims to improve the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis compared with TRUS-guided biopsy. While traditional ultrasound systems operate at 8 to 12 MHz, micro-ultrasound operates at 29 MHz, allowing enhanced recognition of microstructures with 300% higher resolution. Micro-ultrasound can potentially identify and target in real-time suspicious lesions, improving sensitivity and the negative predictive value for clinically significant prostate cancer. It may be a low-cost alternative to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the detection of prostate cancer. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed comparing the diagnostic performance of microultrasound- guided prostate biopsies with mpMRI-targeted prostate biopsies in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched to identify relevant studies published up to July 2022. Results A total of 15 studies were included for the systematic review, with 12 of those studies being included for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for micro-ultrasound-guided biopsies detecting clinically significant prostate cancer were 89% (95% CI 83 to 93) and 31% (95% CI 23 to 40) respectively (I2 = 0%). In comparison, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for mpMRI-targeted biopsies detecting clinically significant prostate cancer were 86% (95% CI 73 to 93) and 32% (95% CI 18 to 50) respectively (I2 = 16%). There was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity or specificity between micro-ultrasound and mpMRI. Subgroup analysis found no difference in MRI subgroups based on blinding (P = 0.383). Conclusion Micro-ultrasound-guided biopsies are comparable to mpMRI targeted biopsies with no difference in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer between the 2 modalities. Large, multicentre, prospective studies are required to further substantiate the use of micro-ultrasound as an alternative to or in conjunction with mpMRI in the detection of prostate cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".