Table 3. Comparison of Diagnostic Performance among MRI-Targeted Biopsy Techniques.

Study (Year)	Study Design	MRI Interpretation	Subject No.	Cancer Detection Rate (%)
				Cognitive Registration		MRI-TRUS Fusion		In-Bore MRI
				Overall Pca	CSC	Overall PCa	CSC	Overall PCa	CSC
Puech et al. (2013) [64]	Prospective	Likert scale	79 lesions	47	N/A	53	N/A	N/A	N/A
Wysock et al. (2014) [65]	Prospective	PI-RADS v1	172 lesions	27	15	32	20	N/A	N/A
Arsov et al. (2015) [67]	Prospective	PI-RADS v1	201 male	N/A	N/A	39	32	37	29
Lee et al. (2016) [66]	Prospective	Likert scale	396 lesions	33	23	37	21	N/A	N/A
Yaxley et al. (2017) [68]	Retrospective	PI-RADS v1	595 lesions	75	68	N/A	N/A	74	66
Kaufmann et al. (2018) [70]	Retrospective	PI-RADS v2	156 male	29	24	52	36	51	40
Hamid et al. (2019) [69]	Prospective	PI-RADS v1	129 male	66	53	69	53	N/A	N/A
Wegelin et al. (2019) [39]	Prospective	PI-RADS v2	665 male	44	33	49	34	55	33

CSC = clinically significant cancer, MRI = magnetic resonance imaging, N/A = not applicable, PCa = prostate cancer, PI-RADS = Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, TRUS = transrectal ultrasonography