MRI software and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging localises cancer in the prostate, allowing for a targeted biopsy with or without transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy. Targeted biopsy methods include cognitive fusion, where prostate lesions suspicious on magnetic resonance imaging are targeted visually during live ultrasound, and software fusion, where computer software overlays the magnetic resonance imaging image onto the ultrasound in real time. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of software fusion technologies compared with cognitive fusion biopsy are uncertain. Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of software fusion biopsy technologies in people with suspected localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, clinical efficacy and practical implementation of nine software fusion devices compared to cognitive fusion biopsies, and with each other, in people with suspected prostate cancer. Comprehensive searches including MEDLINE, and Embase were conducted up to August 2022 to identify studies which compared software fusion and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer. Risk of bias was assessed with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-comparative tool. A network meta-analysis comparing software and cognitive fusion with or without concomitant systematic biopsy, and systematic biopsy alone was conducted. Additional outcomes, including safety and usability, were synthesised narratively. A de novo decision model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of targeted software fusion biopsy relative to cognitive fusion biopsy with or without concomitant systematic biopsy for prostate cancer identification in biopsy-naive people. Scenario analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the results to variation in the model data sources and alternative assumptions. Results: Twenty-three studies (3773 patients with software fusion, 2154 cognitive fusion) were included, of which 13 informed the main meta-analyses. Evidence was available for seven of the nine fusion devices specified in the protocol and at high risk of bias. The meta-analyses show that patients undergoing software fusion biopsy may have: (1) a lower probability of being classified as not having cancer, (2) similar probability of being classified as having non-clinically significant cancer (International Society of Urological Pathology grade 1) and (3) higher probability of being classified at higher International Society of Urological Pathology grades, particularly International Society of Urological Pathology 2. Similar results were obtained when comparing between same biopsy methods where both were combined with systematic biopsy. Evidence was insufficient to conclude whether any individual devices were superior to cognitive fusion, or whether some software fusion technologies were superior to others. Uncertainty in the relative diagnostic accuracy of software fusion versus cognitive fusion reduce the strength of any statements on its cost-effectiveness. The economic analysis suggests incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for software fusion biopsy versus cognitive fusion are within the bounds of cost-effectiveness (£1826 and £5623 per additional quality-adjusted life-year with or with concomitant systematic biopsy, respectively), but this finding needs cautious interpretation. Limitations: There was insufficient evidence to explore the impact of effect modifiers. Conclusions: Software fusion biopsies may be associated with increased cancer detection in relation to cognitive fusion biopsies, but the evidence is at high risk of bias. Sufficiently powered, high-quality studies are required. Cost-effectiveness results should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the diagnostic accuracy evidence. Study registration: This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022329259. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135477) and is published in full in