Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis

被引:258
作者
Woo, Sungmin [1 ]
Suh, Chong Hyun [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Kim, Sang Youn [1 ]
Cho, Jeong Yeon [1 ,5 ,6 ]
Kim, Seung Hyup [1 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Univ Ulsan, Asan Med Ctr, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Univ Ulsan, Asan Med Ctr, Coll Med, Res Inst Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Namwon Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Jeollabuk Do, South Korea
[5] Seoul Natl Univ, Med Res Ctr, Inst Radiat Med, Seoul, South Korea
[6] Seoul Natl Univ, Med Res Ctr, Kidney Res Inst, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2; Prostate cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Meta-analysis; PI-RADS V2; INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT; MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI; ACCURACY; BIOPSY; LOCALIZATION; PUBLICATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.042
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context: In 2015, the updated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) was established. Since then, several studies assessing the value of PI-RADSv2 have been published. Objective: To review the diagnostic performance of PI-RADSv2 for the detection of PCa. Evidence acquisition: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched up to December 7, 2016. We included diagnostic accuracy studies that used PI-RADSv2 for PCa detection, using prostatectomy or biopsy as the reference standard. The methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity of all studies were calculated. Results were pooled and plotted in a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic plot with further exploration using meta-regression and multiple subgroup analyses. Head-to-head comparison between PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2 was performed for available studies. Evidence synthesis: Twenty-one studies (3857 patients) were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.92) with specificity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.60-0.83) for PCa detection. Proportion of patients with PCa, magnetic field strength, and reference standard were significant factors affecting heterogeneity (p < 0.01). Multiple subgroup analyses showed consistent results. In six studies performing head-to-head comparison, PI-RADSv2 demonstrated higher pooled sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.85-0.98) compared with 0.88 (95% CI 0.80-0.93) for PI-RADSv1 (p = 0.04). However, the pooled specificity was not significantly different (0.73 [95% CI 0.47-0.89] vs 0.75 [95% CI 0.36-0.94], respectively; p = 0.90). Conclusions: PI-RADSv2 shows good performance for the detection of PCa. PI-RADSv2 has higher pooled sensitivity than PI-RADSv1 without significantly different specificity. Patient summary: We reviewed all previous studies using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) for prostate cancer detection. We found that the updated PI-RADSv2 shows significant improvement compared with the original PIRADSv1. (C) 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:177 / 188
页数:12
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]   The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level-Can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer? [J].
Abd-Alazeez, Mohamed ;
Ahmed, Hashim U. ;
Arya, Manit ;
Charman, Susan C. ;
Anastasiadis, Eleni ;
Freeman, Alex ;
Emberton, Mark ;
Kirkham, Alex .
UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2014, 32 (01) :45.e17-45.e22
[2]  
American Cancer Society, KEY STAT PROST CANC
[3]  
Auer T, WORLD J URO IN PRESS
[4]   Validation of PI-RADS v.2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil [J].
Baldisserotto, Matteo ;
Dornelles Neto, Eurico J. ;
Carvalhal, Gustavo ;
de Toledo, Aloyso F. ;
de Almeida, Clovis M. ;
Cairoli, Carlos E. D. ;
de Silva, Daniel O. ;
Carvalhal, Eduardo ;
Paganin, Ricardo P. ;
Agra, Alexandre ;
de Santos, Francisco S. ;
Noronha, Jorge A. P. .
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2016, 44 (05) :1354-1359
[5]   ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 [J].
Barentsz, Jelle O. ;
Richenberg, Jonathan ;
Clements, Richard ;
Choyke, Peter ;
Verma, Sadhna ;
Villeirs, Geert ;
Rouviere, Olivier ;
Logager, Vibeke ;
Futterer, Jurgen J. .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2012, 22 (04) :746-757
[6]   Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System for the Detection of Prostate Cancer by the Results of Targeted Biopsy of the Prostate [J].
Baur, Alexander D. J. ;
Maxeiner, Andreas ;
Franiel, Tobias ;
Kilic, Ergin ;
Huppertz, Alexander ;
Schwenke, Carsten ;
Hamm, Bernd ;
Durmus, Tahir .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2014, 49 (06) :411-420
[7]   Accuracy of Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Meta-Analysis [J].
de Rooij, Maarten ;
Hamoen, Esther H. J. ;
Futterer, Jurgen J. ;
Barentsz, Jelle O. ;
Rovers, Maroeska M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2014, 202 (02) :343-351
[8]   Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging has limited added value over T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging when using PI-RADSv2 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with elevated PSA [J].
De Visschere, P. ;
Lumen, N. ;
Ost, P. ;
Decaestecker, K. ;
Pattyn, E. ;
Villeirs, G. .
CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2017, 72 (01) :23-32
[9]   Systematic reviews in health care - Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening [J].
Deeks, JJ .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7305) :157-162
[10]   The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed [J].
Deeks, JJ ;
Macaskill, P ;
Irwig, L .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2005, 58 (09) :882-893