Top

European Radiology

Published in:

01-12-2017 | Urogenital

A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer

Authors: Li Zhang, Min Tang, Sipan Chen, Xiaoyan Lei, Xiaoling Zhang, Yi Huan

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2017

Abstract

Objectives

This meta-analysis was undertaken to review the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS V2 for prostate cancer (PCa) detection with multiparametric MR (mp-MR).

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of electronic databases was performed by two observers independently. Inclusion criteria were original research using the PI-RADS V2 system in reporting prostate MRI. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Data necessary to complete 2 × 2 contingency tables were obtained from the included studies.

Results

Thirteen studies (2,049 patients) were analysed. This is an initial meta-analysis of PI-RADs V2 and the overall diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing PCa was as follows: pooled sensitivity, 0.85 (0.78–0.91); pooled specificity, 0.71 (0.60–0.80); pooled positive likelihood ratio (LR+), 2.92 (2.09–4.09); pooled negative likelihood ratio (LR–), 0.21 (0.14–0.31); pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), 14.08 (7.93–25.01), respectively. Positive predictive values ranged from 0.54 to 0.97 and negative predictive values ranged from 0.26 to 0.92.

Conclusion

Currently available evidence indicates that PI-RADS V2 appears to have good diagnostic accuracy in patients with PCa lesions with high sensitivity and moderate specificity. However, no recommendation regarding the best threshold can be provided because of heterogeneity.

Key Points

• PI-RADS V2 shows good diagnostic accuracy for PCa detection.

• Initially pooled specificity of PI-RADS v2 remains moderate.

• PCa detection is increased by experienced radiologists.

• There is currently a high heterogeneity in prostate diagnostics with MRI.

Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F et al (2010) Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 127(12):2893–2917CrossRefPubMed

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate. MR guidelines. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6):1045–1053CrossRefPubMed

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRefPubMed

Lin WC, Muglia VF, Silva GEB et al (2016) Multiparametric MRI of the prostate: diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of two scoring systems. Br J Radiol 89(1062):1–10CrossRef

Vache T, Bratan F, Mege-lechevallier F et al (2014) Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 272(11):446–455CrossRefPubMed

Baris T, Haresh M, Omer A et al (2013) Prostate cancer:can multiparametric mr imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 268(11):144–152

Rastinehad AR, Waingankar N, Turkbe B et al (2015) Comparison of Multiparametric MRI Scoring Systems and the Impact on Cancer Detection in Patients Undergoing MR US Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsies. PLoS One 10(11):1–16CrossRef

Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA et al (2014) Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:1112–1121CrossRefPubMed

10.

Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F et al (2015) Prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 275(2):458–468CrossRefPubMed

11.

Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S et al (2014) Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 24(2):344–352CrossRefPubMed

12.

Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C et al (2014) Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur J Radiol 83(12):2103–2108CrossRefPubMed

13.

Baur ADJ, Maxeiner A, Franiel T et al (2014) Evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of targeted biopsy of the prostate. Investig Radiol 49(6):411–420CrossRef

14.

Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA et al (2015) Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(6):1112–1121CrossRefPubMed

15.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8(5):336–341CrossRefPubMed

16.

Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536CrossRefPubMed

17.

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW et al (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990CrossRefPubMed

19.

Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A et al (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Rwig L (2005) The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:882–893CrossRefPubMed

21.

Washino S, Okochi T, Saitoet K et al (2016) Combination of PI-RADS score and PSA density predicts biopsy outcome in biopsy naive patients. BJU Int 2:1–9

22.

Li BS, Wang L, Deng M et al (2016) The correlation between multi-parametric MRI of prostate imaging reporting and data system score and transrectal ultrasound guided needle biopsy. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging 7:5321–5326

23.

Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H et al (2016) Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS vl. Eur J Radiol 85(6):1125–1131CrossRefPubMed

24.

Park SY, Jung DC, Oh YT et al (2016) Prostate Cancer: PI-RADS Version 2 Helps Preoperatively Predict Clinically Significant Cancers. Radiology 280(1):108–116CrossRefPubMed

25.

Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH et al (2016) Prospective Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Prostate Cancer Detection. J Urol 196(3):690–696CrossRefPubMed

26.

Meier-Schroers M, Kukuk G, Wolter K et al (2016) Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Eur J Radiol 85(7):1304–1311CrossRefPubMed

27.

Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R et al (2016) Assessment of PI-RADS V2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Eur J Radiol 85(4):726–731CrossRefPubMed

28.

Baldisserotto M, Neto EJ, Carvalhal G et al (2016) Validation of PI-RADS V2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil. J Magn Reson Imaging 44(5):1354–1359CrossRefPubMed

29.

Li P. (2015) The preliminary evaluation of PI-RADS v2 and Likert scale in the diagnosis of prostate cancer using mp-MRI. Suzhou University

30.

Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S et al (2015) Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology 277(3):741–750CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Zhao CL, Gao G, Fang D et al (2016) The effi ciency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Imaging 40:885–888CrossRefPubMed

32.

Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R et al (2015) Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 22(4):467–74.33.

33.

Sertdemir M, Schoenberg SO, Sourbron S, et al. (2013) Interscanner comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer: 1.5 versus 3 T MRI. Invest Radiol 48(2):92–97

34.

de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ et al (2014) Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 202:343–351CrossRef

Title: A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer
Authors: Li Zhang
Min Tang
Sipan Chen
Xiaoyan Lei
Xiaoling Zhang
Yi Huan
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4843-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2017

CT findings associated with survival in chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis

Accuracy and reading time for six strategies using digital breast tomosynthesis in women with mammographically negative dense breasts

Percutaneous cryoablation of symptomatic venous malformations as a second-line therapeutic option: a five-year single institution experience

Assessment of patency capsule retention using MR diffusion-weighted imaging

Is multidetector CT-based bone mineral density and quantitative bone microstructure assessment at the spine still feasible using ultra-low tube current and sparse sampling?

Differentiating metastatic from nonmetastatic lymph nodes in cervical cancer patients using monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched exponential diffusion-weighted MR imaging