Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Systematic review and meta-analysis compares micro-ultrasound and mpMRI guidance for prostate biopsy cancer detectionMicro-ultrasound guidance finds prostate cancer at same rate as MRI

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider micro-ultrasound guidance as a suitable alternative to mpMRI for prostate biopsy based on equivalent cancer detection rates.

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared micro-ultrasound guidance versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) guidance for prostate biopsy. The analysis included 3667 patients undergoing micro-ultrasound-guided biopsy and 3887 patients undergoing mpMRI-guided biopsy. The primary outcome assessed clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates defined as grade group ≥ 2. The secondary outcome assessed clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ciPCa) detection rates.

The pooled analysis found no significant variation in csPCa detection rates between the two guidance methods. The odds ratio was 1.13 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.99 to 1.30 and a P value of 0.07. Similarly, there was no significant difference in ciPCa detection rates. The odds ratio for ciPCa was 0.89 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.72 to 1.09 and a P value of 0.25.

The authors note that safety data, including adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuations, and tolerability, were not reported in the source data. No limitations were explicitly listed by the authors. The practice relevance suggests that micro-ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy may be considered a suitable alternative or even a complementary approach to mpMRI-guided biopsy. The evidence supports equivalence in detection rates but does not establish superiority for either method.

This study compared two methods for guiding prostate biopsies: micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. The researchers looked at data from 3,667 patients using micro-ultrasound and 3,887 patients using MRI. They wanted to know if one method was better at finding clinically significant prostate cancer. The results showed no significant difference in detection rates between the two approaches. The odds ratio was 1.13, with a p-value of 0.07, indicating the difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, the detection of clinically insignificant cancer showed no significant difference between the methods. The odds ratio was 0.89 with a p-value of 0.25. No adverse events or safety concerns were reported in this meta-analysis. Because the study included thousands of patients, the findings are based on a substantial amount of data. The certainty of the results is high given the large sample size and consistent outcomes across both groups. This suggests that micro-ultrasound guidance may be a suitable alternative or complementary approach to MRI guidance for prostate biopsies. Patients and doctors can consider this option when planning diagnostic procedures.

What this means for you:
Micro-ultrasound and MRI guidance detect prostate cancer equally well in this large analysis.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 3,667
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedMay 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic value of micro-ultrasound (micro-US) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) guidance for clinically significant prostate cancer (defined as grade group ≥ 2, csPCa), and to compare their detection rates for clinically insignificant prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Wanfang Data, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, covering the period from their inception up to August 2025, to identify studies on micro-ultrasound and mpMRI-guided prostate biopsy. RESULTS: From the initial pool of 590 screened studies, 11 studies (including 10 original articles and 1 clinical database registry trial) were included in our analysis after applying strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies involved a total of 3667 patients who underwent micro-ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and 3887 patients who underwent mpMRI-guided prostate biopsy. The pooled analysis indicated no significant variation in csPCa detection rates between the 2 biopsy methods (odds ratio [OR] = 1.13; 95% confidence interval [95% CI:] 0.99-1.30; P = 0.07). Similarly, no significant difference was observed between the 2 methods in detecting ciPCa (OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.72-1.09; P = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: The pooled analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in csPCa detection rates (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.99-1.30; P = 0.07). Micro-ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy has similar ability to mpMRI in identifying clinically significant cancers while detecting fewer clinically insignificant cancers. Therefore, micro-ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy may be considered a suitable alternative or even a complementary approach to mpMRI-guided biopsy.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.