Usability and diagnostic accuracy of different MRI/ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy systems for the detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer: a prospective cohort study.

Abstract

To explore the usability and diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer of three multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided fusion biopsy systems operated by the same urologists. We performed a prospective, observational study including patients that underwent prostate biopsy due to a visible lesion in mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 3). We consecutively assessed two platforms with a rigid image registration (BioJet, D&K Technologies and UroNav, Invivo Corporation) and one with an elastic registration (Trinity, KOELIS). Four urologists evaluated each fusion system in terms of usability based on the System Usability Scale and diagnostic accuracy based on the detection of prostate cancer. We enrolled 60 consecutive patients that received mpMRI/TRUS-guided prostate biopsy with the BioJet (n = 20), UroNav (n = 20) or Trinity (n = 20) fusion system. Comparing the rigid with the elastic registration systems, the rigid registration systems were more user-friendly compared to the elastic registration systems (p = 0.012). Similarly, the prostate biopsy with the rigid registration systems had a shorter duration compared to the elastic registration system (p < 0.001). Overall, 40 cases of prostate cancer were detected. Of them, both the BioJet and UroNav fusion systems detected 13 prostate cancer cases, while the Trinity detected 14. No significant differences were demonstrated among the three fusion biopsy systems in terms of highest ISUP Grade Group (p > 0.99). Rigid fusion biopsy systems are easier to use and provide shorter operative time compared to elastic systems, while both types of platforms display similar detection rates for prostate cancer. Still, further high-quality, long-term results are mandatory.