Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis
- PMID: 28196723
- DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.042
Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis
Abstract
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 PI-RADSv1.
Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging; Meta-analysis; Prostate cancer; Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.
Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 and the Implementation of High-quality Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):189-191. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.030. Epub 2017 Mar 3. Eur Urol. 2017. PMID: 28262414 No abstract available.
-
Re: Sungmin Woo, Chong Hyun Suh, Sang Youn Kim, Jeong Yeon Cho, Seung Hyup Kim. Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017;72:177-88.Eur Urol. 2018 Feb;73(2):e29. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.039. Epub 2017 Aug 8. Eur Urol. 2018. PMID: 28801125 No abstract available.
-
Reply to Erfan Ayubi and Saeid Safiri's Letter to the Editor re: Sungmin Woo, Chong Hyun Suh, Sang Youn Kim, Jeong Yeon Cho, Seung Hyup Kim. Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017;72:177-88.Eur Urol. 2018 Feb;73(2):e30. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.040. Epub 2017 Aug 12. Eur Urol. 2018. PMID: 28807349 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
