Table 2. Comparison between systematic vs. targeted prostate biopsy.

Study/year	Study design	No. of patients	Biopsy	Key results
Shoji 2017 (28)	Prospective	250	MRI targeted biopsy vs. 12 core systematic biopsy	Significant cancer detection rate 55% (target Bx) vs. 25% (SBx) (P<0.0001)
Albisinni 2018 (29)	Prospective	74	MRI target vs. systematic	Similar clinically significant PCa detection rate 33.8% (target) vs. 28.4% systematic (P=0.38) Combination superior to target only in overall cancer detection (P=0.007) but not in clinically significant PCa detection (P=0.13)
Muthigi 2017 (30)	Retrospective	1003	MRI targeted biopsy vs. systematic biopsy	Upgrade to clinically significant disease 6.2%
Mischinger 2018 (31)	Retrospective	130	Robotic assisted transperineal MRI-US fusion target vs. systematic	Similar detection rate for overall and clinically significant PCa (77% vs. 84%, 80% vs. 82% respectively) Target biopsy offers 50% reduction in number of cores
Borkowetz 2015 (32)	Prospective	263	MRI/US fusion transperineal vs. TRUS systematic biopsy	Target biopsy detecting more cancer than systematic biopsy (44% vs. 35% P=0.002)
Kaufmann 2015 (33)	Retrospective	35	MR targeted TP biopsy vs. TRUS systematic Bx	Tumour detection rate higher with MR target biopsy compared with TRUS systematic biopsy (46% vs. 23%, P<0.05)
Radtke 2015 (16)	Prospective	294	MR targeted TP biopsy vs. systematic TP biopsy	Systematic biopsy missed 20.9% clinically significant tumour vs. 12.8% missed by targeted biopsy Target biopsy has better sampling efficiency than systematic biopsy (46% vs. 7.5%)
Delongchamps 2016 (34)	Prospective	108	MRI target biopsy vs. systematic biopsy	Similar cancer detection rate (56.5% vs. 61.1%) No statistically significant difference in detection of clinically significant PCa (48.1% vs. 46.2% P=0.69)
Baco 2016 (35)	RCT	175 • MRI group 86 • Control group 89	MRI/US fusion biopsy vs. systematic biopsy DRE lesion target biopsy vs. systematic biopsy	Detection rate for csPCa similar in the two groups