Li Zhang1,2, Min Tang2, Sipan Chen1,2, Xiaoyan Lei2, Xiaoling Zhang2, Yi Huan3. 1. Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, 17 Changle Road, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710032, China. 2. Department of MRI, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710032, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, 17 Changle Road, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710032, China. huanyi3000@163.com.
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Meta-analysis; PI-RADS V2; Prostate cancer
Authors: Michael Meier-Schroers; Guido Kukuk; Karsten Wolter; Georges Decker; Stefan Fischer; Christian Marx; Frank Traeber; Alois Martin Sprinkart; Wolfgang Block; Hans Heinz Schild; Winfried Willinek Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Raphaëlle Renard-Penna; Pierre Mozer; François Cornud; Nicolas Barry-Delongchamps; Eric Bruguière; Daniel Portalez; Bernard Malavaud Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-01-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Joanna H Shih; Sandeep Sankineni; Jamie Marko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin Koruthu George; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Zarine K Shah; Saba N Elias; Ronney Abaza; Debra L Zynger; Lawrence A DeRenne; Michael V Knopp; Beibei Guo; Ryan Schurr; Steven B Heymsfield; Guang Jia Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Manuel Madariaga-Venegas; Nicolas Aviles; Juan Carlos Roman; Ivan Gallegos; Mauricio Burotto Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Jonathan B Bloom; Clayton P Smith; Kareem N Rayn; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Lars A R Reisæter; Ole J Halvorsen; Christian Beisland; Alfred Honoré; Karsten Gravdal; Are Losnegård; Jan Monssen; Lars A Akslen; Martin Biermann Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2020-01-17
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mehdi Taghipour; Alireza Ziaei; Francesco Alessandrino; Elmira Hassanzadeh; Mukesh Harisinghani; Mark Vangel; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-04
Authors: Jorge Abreu-Gomez; Daniel Walker; Tareq Alotaibi; Matthew D F McInnes; Trevor A Flood; Nicola Schieda Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 5.315