Wei Li1, Chun Xin2, Lanlan Zhang3, Anding Dong4, Haibing Xu5, Yiman Wu6. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, Jiangsu Vocational College of Medicine, Yancheng City, China. Electronic address: hfjs2000@126.com. 2. Department of Medical Imaging, Jiangsu Vocational College of Medicine, Yancheng City, China. Electronic address: hfjs2000@outlook.com. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Yancheng Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Yancheng, China. Electronic address: contribute_sci@126.com. 4. Department of Medical Imaging, Jiangsu Vocational College of Medicine, Yancheng City, China. Electronic address: 153902705@qq.com. 5. Department of Medical Imaging, Jiangsu Vocational College of Medicine, Yancheng City, China. Electronic address: 11368@jsmc.edu.cn. 6. Department of Medical Imaging, Jiangsu Vocational College of Medicine, Yancheng City, China. Electronic address: wamzqy0661@sina.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 1(PI-RADS v1) and PI-RADS v2 for detection of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed from inception to September 31, 2018, in following databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, in addition to Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Data database. Sensitivity and specificity of individual studies along with summary estimates were calculated and presented in forest plots. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to investigate the heterogeneity. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. RESULTS: 14 studies involving head to head comparison between PI-RADS v1 and v2 were included, with a total of 1682 patients. The pooled sensitivity for PI-RADS v1 and PI-RADS v2 were 85.37% (95% CI 79.29%-89.89%) and 87.79% (95% CI 79.84%-92.88%), with pooled specificity of 77.26% (95% CI 57.29%-89.58%) and 76.73% (95% CI 58.69%-88.44%), respectively. There was no substantial difference in diagnostic accuracy between PI-RADS v1 and PI-RADS v2 (P = 0.57 for sensitivity and P = 0.96 for specificity). Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression suggested these two scoring systems had comparable diagnostic performance on magnetic field strength, zonal anatomy, and outcome assessment. For the transitional zone, it seemed that PI-RADS v2 had higher sensitivity than PI-RADS v1 (90.1% vs. 80.59%), but the difference was not substantial (P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2 has slightly higher sensitivity but at the expense of minor decreased specificity. Thus, on the whole PI-RADS v1 and PI-RADS v2 have comparable diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 1(PI-RADS v1) and PI-RADS v2 for detection of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed from inception to September 31, 2018, in following databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, in addition to Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang Data database. Sensitivity and specificity of individual studies along with summary estimates were calculated and presented in forest plots. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to investigate the heterogeneity. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. RESULTS: 14 studies involving head to head comparison between PI-RADS v1 and v2 were included, with a total of 1682 patients. The pooled sensitivity for PI-RADS v1 and PI-RADS v2 were 85.37% (95% CI 79.29%-89.89%) and 87.79% (95% CI 79.84%-92.88%), with pooled specificity of 77.26% (95% CI 57.29%-89.58%) and 76.73% (95% CI 58.69%-88.44%), respectively. There was no substantial difference in diagnostic accuracy between PI-RADS v1 and PI-RADS v2 (P = 0.57 for sensitivity and P = 0.96 for specificity). Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression suggested these two scoring systems had comparable diagnostic performance on magnetic field strength, zonal anatomy, and outcome assessment. For the transitional zone, it seemed that PI-RADS v2 had higher sensitivity than PI-RADS v1 (90.1% vs. 80.59%), but the difference was not substantial (P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: PI-RADS v2 has slightly higher sensitivity but at the expense of minor decreased specificity. Thus, on the whole PI-RADS v1 and PI-RADS v2 have comparable diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie A Harmon; Joanna H Shih; Clayton P Smith; Nathan Lay; Burak Argun; Sandra Bednarova; Ronaldo Hueb Baroni; Abdullah Erdem Canda; Karabekir Ercan; Rossano Girometti; Ercan Karaarslan; Ali Riza Kural; Andrei S Purysko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Victor Martins Tonso; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Ricardo Silvestre E Silva Macarenco; Maria J Merino; Berrak Gumuskaya; Yesim Saglican; Stefano Sioletic; Anne Y Warren; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Bittencourt; Mehmet Coskun; Chris Knauss; Yan Mee Law; Ashkan A Malayeri; Daniel J Margolis; Jamie Marko; Derya Yakar; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Ronald M Summers; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 3.959