Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Mar;4(2):219-227. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.003. Epub 2016 Jul 29.

Elastic Versus Rigid Image Registration in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Wulphert.Venderink@radboudumc.nl.
2
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
3
Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Abstract

CONTEXT:

The main difference between the available magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS) fusion platforms for prostate biopsy is the method of image registration being either rigid or elastic. As elastic registration compensates for possible deformation caused by the introduction of an ultrasound probe for example, it is expected that it would perform better than rigid registration.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare rigid with elastic registration by calculating the detection odds ratio (OR) for both subgroups. The detection OR is defined as the ratio of the odds of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) by MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy compared with systematic TRUS biopsy. Secondary objectives were the OR for any PCa and the OR after pooling both registration techniques.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION:

The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were systematically searched for relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement. Studies comparing MRI-TRUS fusion and systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in the same patient were included. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:

Eleven papers describing elastic and 10 describing rigid registration were included. Meta-analysis showed an OR of csPCa for elastic and rigid registration of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.73, p<0.0001) and 1.40 (95% CI: 1.13-1.75, p=0.002), respectively. No significant difference was seen between the subgroups (p=0.83). Pooling subgroups resulted in an OR of 1.43 (95% CI: 1.25-1.63, p<0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS:

No significant difference was identified between rigid and elastic registration for MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in the detection of csPCa; however, both techniques detected more csPCa than TRUS-guided biopsy alone.

PATIENT SUMMARY:

We did not identify any significant differences in prostate cancer detection between two distinct magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion systems which vary in their method of compensating for prostate deformation.

KEYWORDS:

Elastic; Image registration; MRI-TRUS fusion; Prostate cancer; Rigid

PMID:
28753777
DOI:
10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.003

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center