Mostafa Alabousi1, Jean-Paul Salameh2,3, Kaela Gusenbauer4, Lucy Samoilov5, Ali Jafri6, Hang Yu4, Abdullah Alabousi7. 1. Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Medicine, New York Institute of Technology School of Osteopathic Medicine, Glen Head, NY, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, St Joseph's Healthcare, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic review and meta-analysis comparing multiparametric (diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], T2-weighted imaging [T2WI], and dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] imaging) magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and biparametric (DWI and T2WI) MRI (bpMRI) in detecting prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) were searched to identify relevant studies published after 1 January 2012. Articles underwent title, abstract, and full-text screening. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients with suspected prostate cancer, bpMRI and/or mpMRI as the index test(s), histopathology as the reference standard, and a DTA outcome measure. Methodological and DTA data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. DTA metrics were pooled using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess for heterogeneity. RESULTS: From an initial 3502 studies, 31 studies reporting on 9480 patients (4296 with prostate cancer) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis; 25 studies reported on mpMRI (7000 patients, 2954 with prostate cancer) and 12 studies reported on bpMRI DTA (2716 patients, 1477 with prostate cancer). Pooled summary statistics demonstrated no significant difference for sensitivity (mpMRI: 86%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 81-90; bpMRI: 90%, 95% CI 83-94) or specificity (mpMRI: 73%, 95% CI 64-81; bpMRI: 70%, 95% CI 42-83). The summary receiver operating characteristic curves were comparable for mpMRI (0.87) and bpMRI (0.90). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in DTA was found between mpMRI and bpMRI in diagnosing prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients. Study heterogeneity warrants cautious interpretation of the results. With replication of our findings in dedicated validation studies, bpMRI may serve as a faster, cheaper, gadolinium-free alternative to mpMRI.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic review and meta-analysis comparing multiparametric (diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI], T2-weighted imaging [T2WI], and dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] imaging) magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and biparametric (DWI and T2WI) MRI (bpMRI) in detecting prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) were searched to identify relevant studies published after 1 January 2012. Articles underwent title, abstract, and full-text screening. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients with suspected prostate cancer, bpMRI and/or mpMRI as the index test(s), histopathology as the reference standard, and a DTA outcome measure. Methodological and DTA data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. DTA metrics were pooled using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess for heterogeneity. RESULTS: From an initial 3502 studies, 31 studies reporting on 9480 patients (4296 with prostate cancer) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis; 25 studies reported on mpMRI (7000 patients, 2954 with prostate cancer) and 12 studies reported on bpMRI DTA (2716 patients, 1477 with prostate cancer). Pooled summary statistics demonstrated no significant difference for sensitivity (mpMRI: 86%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 81-90; bpMRI: 90%, 95% CI 83-94) or specificity (mpMRI: 73%, 95% CI 64-81; bpMRI: 70%, 95% CI 42-83). The summary receiver operating characteristic curves were comparable for mpMRI (0.87) and bpMRI (0.90). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in DTA was found between mpMRI and bpMRI in diagnosing prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients. Study heterogeneity warrants cautious interpretation of the results. With replication of our findings in dedicated validation studies, bpMRI may serve as a faster, cheaper, gadolinium-free alternative to mpMRI.
Authors: Alexander P Cole; Bjoern J Langbein; Francesco Giganti; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Mark Emberton Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Michele Scialpi; Pietro Scialpi; Eugenio Martorana; Riccardo Torre; Antonio Improta; Maria Cristina Aisa; Alfredo D'Andrea; Aldo Di Blasi Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2021-05
Authors: Akshay Wadera; Mostafa Alabousi; Alex Pozdnyakov; Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita; Ali Jafri; Matthew Df McInnes; Nicola Schieda; Christian B van der Pol; Jean-Paul Salameh; Lucy Samoilov; Kaela Gusenbauer; Abdullah Alabousi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-03-17