Literature DB >> 30512996

Abbreviated Biparametric Versus Standard Multiparametric MRI for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zhen Kang1, Xiangde Min1, Jeffrey Weinreb2, Qiubai Li3, Zhaoyan Feng1, Liang Wang1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated biparametric MRI (bpMRI) versus standard multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for prostate cancer (PCa) using guided biopsy or prostatectomy histopathology results as the reference standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed by two researchers independently and the relevant references were assessed. Original research studies comparing bpMRI with mpMRI in diagnosing PCa were included. The methodologic quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Data necessary to complete 2 × 2 contingency tables were obtained to calculate the diagnostic performance of bpMRI and mpMRI using Stata (version 14).
RESULTS: Ten studies were included, and a total of 1705 patients and 3419 lesions were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of mpMRI in diagnosing PCa were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.87), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-0.96), 6.9 (95% CI, 2.5-18.8), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.35), and 29 (95% CI, 10-83). Sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR, and DOR of bpMRI in diagnosing PCa were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.87), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.73-0.95), 6.4 (95% CI, 2.9-14.5), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16-0.35), and 27 (95% CI, 11-67). Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between bpMRI and mpMRI for the diagnosis of PCa, and the areas under the summary ROC (SROC) curves were 0.89 and 0.88, respectively (p = 0.9944). Results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent, and the area under the SROC curve for bpMRI and mpMRI was 0.89 for both (p = 0.9349).
CONCLUSION: The available evidence indicates that bpMRI and mpMRI have similar diagnostic efficacy in diagnosing PCa.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biparametric MRI; diagnosis; meta-analysis; multiparametric MRI; prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30512996     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20103

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  23 in total

1.  A radiomics machine learning-based redefining score robustly identifies clinically significant prostate cancer in equivocal PI-RADS score 3 lesions.

Authors:  Ying Hou; Mei-Ling Bao; Chen-Jiang Wu; Jing Zhang; Yu-Dong Zhang; Hai-Bin Shi
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-08-01

Review 2.  Roundtable: arguments in support of using multi-parametric prostate MRI protocol.

Authors:  Sirisin Kamsut; Kimberly Reid; Nelly Tan
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

Review 3.  Round table: arguments in supporting abbreviated or biparametric MRI of the prostate protocol.

Authors:  Michele Scialpi; Eugenio Martorana; Pietro Scialpi; Alfredo D'Andrea; Riccardo Torre; Aldo Di Blasi; Stefano Signore
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

4.  Efficacy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT with biparametric MRI in diagnosing prostate cancer and predicting risk stratification: a comparative study.

Authors:  Yi Nuo; Aimei Li; Lulu Yang; Hailin Xue; Feng Wang; Liwei Wang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-01

5.  Clinical impact of ultra-high b-value (3000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer at 3T: comparison with b-value of 2000 s/mm2.

Authors:  Tsutomu Tamada; Ayumu Kido; Yu Ueda; Mitsuru Takeuchi; Takeshi Fukunaga; Teruki Sone; Akira Yamamoto
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Performance and inter-observer variability of prostate MRI (PI-RADS version 2) outside high-volume centres.

Authors:  Kimia Kohestani; Jonas Wallström; Niclas Dehlfors; Ole Martin Sponga; Marianne Månsson; Andreas Josefsson; Sigrid Carlsson; Mikael Hellström; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 1.612

7.  The effect of capped biparametric magnetic resonance imaging slots on weekly prostate cancer imaging workload.

Authors:  Nikita Sushentsev; Iztok Caglic; Evis Sala; Nadeem Shaida; Rhys A Slough; Bruno Carmo; Vasily Kozlov; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Tristan Barrett
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 8.  Quality in MR reporting (include improvements in acquisition using AI).

Authors:  Liang Wang; Daniel J Margolis; Min Chen; Xinming Zhao; Qiubai Li; Zhenghan Yang; Jie Tian; Zhenchang Wang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 9.  Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

Authors:  David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  Comparison of risk-calculator and MRI and consecutive pathways as upfront stratification for prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Melline G M Schilham; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Daan J Reesink; Erik J R J van der Hoeven; Ivo G Schoots; Harm H E van Melick
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.