Sungmin Woo1, Chong Hyun Suh2, Sang Youn Kim3, Jeong Yeon Cho4, Seung Hyup Kim4. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Department of Radiology, Namwon Medical Center, Jeollabuk-do, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: iwishluv@empas.com. 4. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Institute of Radiation Medicine and Kidney Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
CONTEXT: In 2015, the updated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) was established. Since then, several studies assessing the value of PI-RADSv2 have been published. OBJECTIVE: To review the diagnostic performance of PI-RADSv2 for the detection of PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched up to December 7, 2016. We included diagnostic accuracy studies that used PI-RADSv2 for PCa detection, using prostatectomy or biopsy as the reference standard. The methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity of all studies were calculated. Results were pooled and plotted in a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic plot with further exploration using meta-regression and multiple subgroup analyses. Head-to-head comparison between PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2 was performed for available studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one studies (3857 patients) were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.92) with specificity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.60-0.83) for PCa detection. Proportion of patients with PCa, magnetic field strength, and reference standard were significant factors affecting heterogeneity (p<0.01). Multiple subgroup analyses showed consistent results. In six studies performing head-to-head comparison, PI-RADSv2 demonstrated higher pooled sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.85-0.98) compared with 0.88 (95% CI 0.80-0.93) for PI-RADSv1 (p=0.04). However, the pooled specificity was not significantly different (0.73 [95% CI 0.47-0.89] vs 0.75 [95% CI 0.36-0.94], respectively; p=0.90). CONCLUSIONS: PI-RADSv2 shows good performance for the detection of PCa. PI-RADSv2 has higher pooled sensitivity than PI-RADSv1 without significantly different specificity. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed all previous studies using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) for prostate cancer detection. We found that the updated PI-RADSv2 shows significant improvement compared with the original PI-RADSv1.
CONTEXT: In 2015, the updated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) was established. Since then, several studies assessing the value of PI-RADSv2 have been published. OBJECTIVE: To review the diagnostic performance of PI-RADSv2 for the detection of PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched up to December 7, 2016. We included diagnostic accuracy studies that used PI-RADSv2 for PCa detection, using prostatectomy or biopsy as the reference standard. The methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity of all studies were calculated. Results were pooled and plotted in a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic plot with further exploration using meta-regression and multiple subgroup analyses. Head-to-head comparison between PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2 was performed for available studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one studies (3857 patients) were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.92) with specificity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.60-0.83) for PCa detection. Proportion of patients with PCa, magnetic field strength, and reference standard were significant factors affecting heterogeneity (p<0.01). Multiple subgroup analyses showed consistent results. In six studies performing head-to-head comparison, PI-RADSv2 demonstrated higher pooled sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.85-0.98) compared with 0.88 (95% CI 0.80-0.93) for PI-RADSv1 (p=0.04). However, the pooled specificity was not significantly different (0.73 [95% CI 0.47-0.89] vs 0.75 [95% CI 0.36-0.94], respectively; p=0.90). CONCLUSIONS: PI-RADSv2 shows good performance for the detection of PCa. PI-RADSv2 has higher pooled sensitivity than PI-RADSv1 without significantly different specificity. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed all previous studies using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) for prostate cancer detection. We found that the updated PI-RADSv2 shows significant improvement compared with the original PI-RADSv1.
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: Richard C Wu; Amir H Lebastchi; Boris A Hadaschik; Mark Emberton; Caroline Moore; Pilar Laguna; Jurgen J Fütterer; Arvin K George Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Niklas Westhoff; Henning Haumann; Maximilian Christian Kriegmair; Jost von Hardenberg; Johannes Budjan; Stefan Porubsky; Maurice Stephan Michel; Patrick Honeck; Manuel Ritter Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 4.226