E J Bass1,2, A Pantovic3, M Connor4,5, R Gabe6, A R Padhani7, A Rockall8, H Sokhi7,9, H Tam4,10, M Winkler4,5, H U Ahmed4,5. 1. Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. ebass@ic.ac.uk. 2. Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. ebass@ic.ac.uk. 3. Centre of Research Excellence in Nutrition and Metabolism, Institute for Medical Research, Belgrade, Serbia. 4. Imperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. 6. Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 7. Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, London, UK. 8. Division of Cancer, Department of Surgery and Cancer,Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. 9. Department of Radiology, Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 10. Department of Radiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), the use of three multiple imaging sequences, typically T2-weighted, diffusion weighted (DWI) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) images, has a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting significant cancer. Current guidance now recommends its use prior to biopsy. However, the impact of DCE is currently under debate regarding test accuracy. Biparametric MRI (bpMRI), using only T2 and DWI has been proposed as a viable alternative. We conducted a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis to further examine the diagnostic performance of bpMRI in the diagnosis of any and clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from 01/01/2017 to 06/07/2019 was performed by two independent reviewers using predefined search criteria. The index test was biparametric MRI and the reference standard whole-mount prostatectomy or prostate biopsy. Quality of included studies was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. Statistical analysis included pooled diagnostic performance (sensitivity; specificity; AUC), meta-regression of possible covariates and head-to-head comparisons of bpMRI and mpMRI where both were performed in the same study. RESULTS: Forty-four articles were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity for any cancer detection was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.88), specificity 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.81) for bpMRI. The summary ROC curve yielded a high AUC value (AUC = 0.86). The pooled sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93), specificity 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.84) and the AUC value was 0.87. Meta-regression analysis revealed no difference in the pooled diagnostic estimates between bpMRI and mpMRI. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis on contemporary studies shows that bpMRI offers comparable test accuracies to mpMRI in detecting prostate cancer. These data are broadly supportive of the bpMRI approach but heterogeneity does not allow definitive recommendations to be made. There is a need for prospective multicentre studies of bpMRI in biopsy naïve men.
INTRODUCTION: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), the use of three multiple imaging sequences, typically T2-weighted, diffusion weighted (DWI) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) images, has a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting significant cancer. Current guidance now recommends its use prior to biopsy. However, the impact of DCE is currently under debate regarding test accuracy. Biparametric MRI (bpMRI), using only T2 and DWI has been proposed as a viable alternative. We conducted a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis to further examine the diagnostic performance of bpMRI in the diagnosis of any and clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from 01/01/2017 to 06/07/2019 was performed by two independent reviewers using predefined search criteria. The index test was biparametric MRI and the reference standard whole-mount prostatectomy or prostate biopsy. Quality of included studies was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. Statistical analysis included pooled diagnostic performance (sensitivity; specificity; AUC), meta-regression of possible covariates and head-to-head comparisons of bpMRI and mpMRI where both were performed in the same study. RESULTS: Forty-four articles were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity for any cancer detection was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.88), specificity 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.81) for bpMRI. The summary ROC curve yielded a high AUC value (AUC = 0.86). The pooled sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93), specificity 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.84) and the AUC value was 0.87. Meta-regression analysis revealed no difference in the pooled diagnostic estimates between bpMRI and mpMRI. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis on contemporary studies shows that bpMRI offers comparable test accuracies to mpMRI in detecting prostate cancer. These data are broadly supportive of the bpMRI approach but heterogeneity does not allow definitive recommendations to be made. There is a need for prospective multicentre studies of bpMRI in biopsy naïve men.
Authors: Giorgio Gandaglia; Alberto Briganti; Nicola Fossati; Andrea Salonia; Alexandre Mottrie; James Catto; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marc A Bjurlin; Peter R Carroll; Scott Eggener; Pat F Fulgham; Daniel J Margolis; Peter A Pinto; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jonathan N Rubenstein; Daniel B Rukstalis; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniel Osses; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ruth Etzioni; David F Penson; Julie M Legler; Dante di Tommaso; Rob Boer; Peter H Gann; Eric J Feuer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-07-03 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Ugo Giovanni Falagario; Oscar Selvaggio; Francesca Sanguedolce; Paola Milillo; Maria Chiara Sighinolfi; Salvatore Mariano Bruno; Marco Recchia; Carlo Bettocchi; Gian Maria Busetto; Luca Macarini; Bernardo Rocco; Luigi Cormio; Giuseppe Carrieri Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-01-21
Authors: Yi Zhao; Naomi Morka; Benjamin Scott S Simpson; Alex Freeman; Alex Kirkham; Daniel Kelly; Hayley C Whitaker; Mark Emberton; Joseph M Norris Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 2.692