Table 3.
Impact of CEUS guidance on detection rate of transrectal prostate biopsy
| Study | N: CEUS vs. routine (per core)* | CEUS detection rate (per core) | Routine detection rate (per core) | P value (per core) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frauscher et al. [31, 53] | 230 vs. internal control (1139 vs. 2300) | 24.4% (10.4%) | 22.6% (5.3%) | P = 0.58 (P < 0.001) |
| Linden et al. [31, 54] | 60 vs. internal control (225 vs. 600) | 22% (13%) | 27% (8.3%) | P > 0.25 (P = 0.034) |
| Mitterberger et al. [31, 55] | 1776 vs. internal control (8880 vs. 17,760) | 27% (10.8%) | 23% (5.1%) | P < 0.001 (P < 0.001 |
| Taverna et al. [31, 56] | 100 vs. 100 | 29% | 31% | P = 0.3 |
| Halpern et al. [28, 31] | 272 vs. internal control (1237 vs. 3264) | 26% (16.4%) | 39% (8.5%) | P < 0.001 (P < 0.001) |
| Zhao et al. [31, 57] | 65 vs. internal control (44 vs. 336)a | 35.4% (75%)a | 41.5% (48.2%)a | Not reported (P = 0.001)a |
*
In select studies (indicated by separate analyses in parenthesis), statistical analysis was also performed per tissue core retrieved in addition to per patient to assess if CEUS had a higher detection yield per core compared with routine technique
a
Per core analysis was limited to the 28 patients in which an abnormality was noted on CEUS