Kye Jin Park1, Sang Hyun Choi1, Ji Sung Lee2,3, Jeong Kon Kim1, Mi-Hyun Kim1, In Gab Jeong4. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Clinical Research Center, Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Urology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2) categorizes the likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging and determines the diagnostic pathway. We determined clinically significant prostate cancer and all prostate cancer detection rates in each PI-RADS v2 category. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE®, EMBASE® and Cochrane databases were searched for prospective studies reporting the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer or all prostate cancer. Random effects models were used to determine pooled detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer and all prostate cancer for each PI-RADS category. The risk of bias was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Meta-regression analysis was performed to identify factors affecting study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirteen prospective studies including 4,265 men who underwent magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy and/or systematic biopsy for a PI-RADS v2 category 3 or greater, or systematic biopsy for PI-RADS 1-2 were included. The pooled detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer monotonically increased for each PI-RADS v2 category, ie 4% (95% CI 2-8) for category 1-2, 17% (95% CI 13-21) for category 3, 46% (95% CI 38-55) for category 4 and 75% (95% CI 73-78) for category 5. Substantial study heterogeneity was noted in clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates for categories 1-2 and 4, which were significantly affected by study subject selection (biopsy naïve patients only or not) and studies with a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: PI-RADS v2 can be useful for the stratification of the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients at risk for prostate cancer but the limitations in category 4 still remain.
PURPOSE: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2) categorizes the likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging and determines the diagnostic pathway. We determined clinically significant prostate cancer and all prostate cancer detection rates in each PI-RADS v2 category. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE®, EMBASE® and Cochrane databases were searched for prospective studies reporting the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer or all prostate cancer. Random effects models were used to determine pooled detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer and all prostate cancer for each PI-RADS category. The risk of bias was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Meta-regression analysis was performed to identify factors affecting study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirteen prospective studies including 4,265 men who underwent magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy and/or systematic biopsy for a PI-RADS v2 category 3 or greater, or systematic biopsy for PI-RADS 1-2 were included. The pooled detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer monotonically increased for each PI-RADS v2 category, ie 4% (95% CI 2-8) for category 1-2, 17% (95% CI 13-21) for category 3, 46% (95% CI 38-55) for category 4 and 75% (95% CI 73-78) for category 5. Substantial study heterogeneity was noted in clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates for categories 1-2 and 4, which were significantly affected by study subject selection (biopsy naïve patients only or not) and studies with a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: PI-RADS v2 can be useful for the stratification of the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients at risk for prostate cancer but the limitations in category 4 still remain.
Entities:
Keywords:
magnetic resonance imaging; prostate; prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Charlie J Gillis; Thomas M Southall; Robert Wilson; Michelle Anderson; Jennifer Young; Richard Hewitt; Matthew Andrews Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Brian T Helfand; Michael Paterakos; Chi-Hsiung Wang; Pooja Talaty; John Abran; John Bennett; David W Hall; Amy Lehman; Tamer Aboushwareb Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Alae Touzani; Gaëlle Fiard; Eric Barret; Raphaële Renard-Penna; Ambroise Salin; Benjamin Pradère; François Rozet; Jean-Baptiste Beauval; Bernard Malavaud; Gianluca Giannarini; Pierre Colin; Morgan Rouprêt; Guillaume Ploussard Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-10-05
Authors: Maximilian Pallauf; Fabian Steinkohl; Georg Zimmermann; Maximilian Horetzky; Pawel Rajwa; Benjamin Pradere; Andrea Katharina Lindner; Renate Pichler; Thomas Kunit; Shahrokh F Shariat; Lukas Lusuardi; Martin Drerup Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Joshua Chaim; Yulia Lakhman; Robert A Lefkowitz; Josip Nincevic; Ines Nikolovski; Evis Sala; Mithat Gonen; Sigrid V Carlsson; Samson W Fine; Michael J Zelefsky; Peter Scardino; Hedvig Hricak; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 7.450