Zai-Xian Zhang1, Jia Yang1, Cheng-Zhong Zhang1, Kang-An Li1, Qi-Meng Quan1, Xi-Fu Wang1, Han Wang1, Gui-Xiang Zhang2. 1. Department of Radiology, Shanghai First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, 100# Haining Rd, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200080, China. 2. Department of Radiology, Shanghai First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, 100# Haining Rd, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200080, China. Electronic address: gui_xiangzhang@sina.com.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for targeting prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify suitable studies published from January 2001 to October 2013. Polled estimation and subgroup analysis data were obtained using a random effect model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall test performance. RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 698 patients met the included criteria. The mean prostate cancer detection rate was 37.5%. Twelve studies had a pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 88%, 69%, and 16.84 by patient analysis, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, magnetic resonance imaging spectroscopy (MRSI) provided higher pooled sensitivity (91%) and specificity (69%) compared with T2-weighted imaging (T2WI). MRSI combined with MRI had the highest pooled specificity (73%). By site analysis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR in nine studies were 57%, 90%, and 14.34, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, MRSI combined with MRI showed higher pooled sensitivity (58%) and specificity (93%) compared with T2WI. Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) showed the highest pooled specificity: 95% but the lowest pooled sensitivity: 38%. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of studies suggest that the value of MRI to target prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated PSA levels appears significant. MRI combined with MRSI is particularly accurate. Further studies are necessary to confirm the eventual role of DWI in this field.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for targeting prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify suitable studies published from January 2001 to October 2013. Polled estimation and subgroup analysis data were obtained using a random effect model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall test performance. RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 698 patients met the included criteria. The mean prostate cancer detection rate was 37.5%. Twelve studies had a pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 88%, 69%, and 16.84 by patient analysis, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, magnetic resonance imaging spectroscopy (MRSI) provided higher pooled sensitivity (91%) and specificity (69%) compared with T2-weighted imaging (T2WI). MRSI combined with MRI had the highest pooled specificity (73%). By site analysis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR in nine studies were 57%, 90%, and 14.34, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, MRSI combined with MRI showed higher pooled sensitivity (58%) and specificity (93%) compared with T2WI. Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) showed the highest pooled specificity: 95% but the lowest pooled sensitivity: 38%. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of studies suggest that the value of MRI to target prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated PSA levels appears significant. MRI combined with MRSI is particularly accurate. Further studies are necessary to confirm the eventual role of DWI in this field.
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Samuel Carbunaru; James Stinson; Rilwan Babajide; Courtney M P Hollowell; Ximing Yang; Marin Sekosan; Karen Ferrer; Andre Kajdacsy-Balla; Josephine Abelleira; Maria Ruden; Patrice King-Lee; Daniel P Dalton; David D Casalino; Rick A Kittles; Peter H Gann; Edward M Schaeffer; Adam B Murphy Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-06-15
Authors: V J Gnanapragasam; K Burling; A George; S Stearn; A Warren; T Barrett; B Koo; F A Gallagher; A Doble; C Kastner; R A Parker Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Michael S Leapman; Zhen J Wang; Spencer C Behr; John Kurhanewicz; Ronald J Zagoria; Peter R Carroll; Antonio C Westphalen Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2017 Sep-Oct
Authors: Julio Meza; Rilwan Babajide; Ragheed Saoud; Jeanne M Horowitz; David D Casalino; Adam B Murphy; Jamila Sweis; Josephine Abelleira; Irene Helenowski; Borko Jovanovic; Scott Eggener; Frank H Miller Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 2.090