The Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Previous Negative Biopsies and Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Levels: A Meta-analysis

被引:20
|
作者
Zhang, Zai-Xian [1 ]
Yang, Jia [1 ]
Zhang, Cheng-Zhong [1 ]
Li, Kang-An [1 ]
Quan, Qi-Meng [1 ]
Wang, Xi-Fu [1 ]
Wang, Han [1 ]
Zhang, Gui-Xiang [1 ]
机构
[1] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Sch Med, Shanghai Peoples Hosp 1, Dept Radiol, Shanghai 200080, Peoples R China
关键词
Meta-analysis; prostate cancer; magnetic resonance imaging; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; GUIDED BIOPSY; DIAGNOSTIC-VALUE; ENDORECTAL MRI; TUMOR FOCI; MEN; PSA; SPECTROSCOPY; ACCURACY; MRI/MRSI;
D O I
10.1016/j.acra.2014.01.004
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Rationale and Objectives: To assess the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for targeting prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Materials and Methods: Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify suitable studies published from January 2001 to October 2013. Polled estimation and subgroup analysis data Were obtained using a random effect model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall test performance. Results: Fourteen studies involving 698 patients met the included criteria. The mean prostate cancer detection rate was 37.5%. Twelve studies had a pooled Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 88%, 69%, and 16.84 by patient analysis, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, Magnetic resonance imaging spectroscopy (MRSI) provided higher pooled sensitivity (91%) and specificity (69%) compared with T2-weighted imaging (T2WI). MRSI combined with MRI had the highest pooled specificity (73%). By site analysis, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR in nine studies were 57%, 90%, and 14.34, respectively. In the Subgroup analysis, MRSI combined with MRI showed higher pooled sensitivity (58%) and specificity (93%) compared with T2WI. Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) showed the highest pooled specificity: 95% but the lowest pooled sensitivity: 38%. Conclusions: A limited number of studies suggest that the value of MRI to target prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated PSA levels appears significant. MRI combined with MRSI is particularly accurate. Further studies are necessary to confirm the eventual role of DWI in this field.
引用
收藏
页码:578 / 589
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Men's Acceptance of Screening for Prostate Cancer with Prostate-specific Antigen, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Prostate Biopsy
    Godtman, Rebecka Arnsrud
    Pettersson, Christina
    Svensson, Linda
    Kohestani, Kimia
    Bratt, Karin Stinesen
    Wallstrom, Jonas
    Mansson, Marianne
    Hellstrom, Mikael
    Hugosson, Jonas
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2024, 7 (03): : 553 - 562
  • [22] Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging-based prostate-specific antigen density of the prostate in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
    Hoshii, Tatsuhiko
    Nishiyama, Tsutomu
    Toyabe, Shinichi
    Akazawa, Kohei
    Komatsu, Shuichi
    Kaneko, Masaaki
    Hara, Noboru
    Takahashi, Kota
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 14 (04) : 305 - 310
  • [23] The Relationship Between Prostate-Specific Antigen and TNM Classification or Gleason Score in Prostate Cancer Patients With Low Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels
    Izumi, Kouji
    Ikeda, Hiroko
    Maolake, Aerken
    Machioka, Kazuaki
    Nohara, Takahiro
    Narimoto, Kazutaka
    Ueno, Satoru
    Kadono, Yoshifumi
    Kitagawa, Yasuhide
    Konaka, Hiroyuki
    Mizokami, Atsushi
    Namiki, Mikio
    PROSTATE, 2015, 75 (10) : 1034 - 1042
  • [24] Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen density as a predictor of biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis
    Cui, Feilun
    Qiu, Yue
    Xu, Wei
    Zou, Chen
    Fan, Yu
    BMC CANCER, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [25] Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen density as a predictor of biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis
    Feilun Cui
    Yue Qiu
    Wei Xu
    Chen Zou
    Yu Fan
    BMC Cancer, 24
  • [26] Magnetic resonance imaging detection of prostate cancer in men with previous negative prostate biopsy
    Truong, Matthew
    Frye, Thomas P.
    TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2017, 6 (03) : 424 - 431
  • [27] Magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in diagnosis of suspicious prostate cancer A meta-analysis
    Cai, Weiguo
    Zhu, Dongyong
    Byanju, Sama
    Chen, Jie
    Zhang, Hanfei
    Wang, Yanfang
    Liao, Meiyan
    MEDICINE, 2019, 98 (14)
  • [28] Prostate health index vs percent free prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in men with "gray" prostate-specific antigen levels at first biopsy: systematic review and meta-analysis
    Bruzzese, Dario
    Mallarella, Claudia
    Ferro, Matteo
    Perdona, Sisto
    Chiodini, Paolo
    Perruolo, Giuseppe
    Terracciano, Daniela
    TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH, 2014, 164 (06) : 444 - 451
  • [29] The Value of Prostate-specific Antigen Density for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3 Lesions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Strategy to Avoid Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies
    Goertz, Magdalena
    Radtke, Jan Philipp
    Hatiboglu, Gencay
    Schuetz, Viktoria
    Tosev, Georgi
    Guettlein, Maximilian
    Leichsenring, Jonas
    Stenzinger, Albrecht
    Bonekamp, David
    Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
    Hohenfellner, Markus
    Nyarangi-Dix, Joanne Nyaboe
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2021, 7 (02): : 325 - 331
  • [30] Prebiopsy IMPROD Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Combined with Prostate-Specific Antigen Density in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: An External Validation Study
    Knaapila, Juha
    Jambor, Ivan
    Perez, Ileana Montoya
    Ettala, Otto
    Taimen, Pekka
    Verho, Janne
    Kiviniemi, Aida
    Pahikkala, Tapio
    Merisaari, Harri
    Lamminen, Tarja
    Saunavaara, Jani
    Aronen, Hannu J.
    Syvanen, Kari T.
    Bostrom, Peter J.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2020, 3 (05): : 648 - 656