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

European Urology

Volumn 72, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 177-188

  Woo, Sungmin ^a   Suh, Chong Hyun ^b,c   Kim, Sang Youn ^a   Cho, Jeong Yeon ^a   Kim, Seung Hyup ^a  

^a Seoul National University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^c Namwon Medical Center   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging; Meta analysis; Prostate cancer; Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2

Indexed keywords

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EMBASE; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 2; PROSTATECTOMY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BIOPSY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOFTWARE;

AGED; AREA UNDER CURVE; BIOPSY; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; ROC CURVE; SOFTWARE;

EID: 85011966478     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.042     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. American Cancer Society. Key statistics for prostate cancer. www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-key-statistics.
2. Hoeks, C.M., Barentsz, J.O., Hambrock, T., et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261 (2011), 46–66.
3. Ruprecht, O., Weisser, P., Bodelle, B., Ackermann, H., Vogl, T.J., MRI of the prostate: interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Radiol 81 (2012), 456–460.
4. Dickinson, L., Ahmed, H.U., Allen, C., et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway?. J Magn Reson Imaging 37 (2013), 48–58.
5. Barentsz, J.O., Richenberg, J., Clements, R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22 (2012), 746–757.
6. Hamoen, E.H., de Rooij, M., Witjes, J.A., Barentsz, J.O., Rovers, M.M., Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67 (2015), 1112–1121.
7. Abd-Alazeez, M., Ahmed, H.U., Arya, M., et al. The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level—can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer?. Urol Oncol, 32, 2014 45 e17–22.
8. Rosenkrantz, A.B., Kim, S., Lim, R.P., et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 269 (2013), 482–492.
9. Hansford, B.G., Peng, Y., Jiang, Y., et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging curve-type analysis: is it helpful in the differentiation of prostate cancer from healthy peripheral zone?. Radiology 275 (2015), 448–457.
10. Baur, A.D., Maxeiner, A., Franiel, T., et al. Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System for the detection of prostate cancer by the results of targeted biopsy of the prostate. Invest Radiol 49 (2014), 411–420.
11. Weinreb, J.C., Barentsz, J.O., Choyke, P.L., et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69 (2016), 16–40.
12. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), e1–e34.
13. Whiting, P., Rutjes, A.W., Reitsma, J.B., Bossuyt, P.M., Kleijnen, J., The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 3, 2003, 25.
14. Suh, C.H., Park, S.H., Successful publication of systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. Korean J Radiol 17 (2016), 5–6.
15. Deeks, J.J., Macaskill, P., Irwig, L., The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005), 882–893.
16. Auer, T., Edlinger, M., Bektic, J., et al. Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results. World J Urol 35 (2017), 687–693.
17. Baldisserotto, M., Neto, E.J., Carvalhal, G., et al. Validation of PI-RADS v.2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil. J Magn Reson Imaging 44 (2016), 1354–1359.
18. De Visschere, P., Lumen, N., Ost, P., Decaestecker, K., Pattyn, E., Villeirs, G., 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. Clin Radiol 72 (2017), 23–32.
19. El-Samei HAE-KA, Amin, M.F., Hassan, E.E., Assessment of the accuracy of multi-parametric MRI with PI-RADS 2.0 scoring system in the discrimination of suspicious prostatic focal lesions. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 47 (2016), 1075–1082.
20. Feng, Z.Y., Wang, L., Min, X.D., Wang, S.G., Wang, G.P., Cai, J., Prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 1 versus version 2. Chin Med J 129 (2016), 2451–2459.
21. Kasel-Seibert, M., Lehmann, T., Aschenbach, R., et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 85 (2016), 726–731.
22. Lin, W.C., Muglia, V.F., Silva, G.E., Chodraui Filho, S., Reis, R.B., Westphalen, A.C., Multiparametric, M.R.I., of the prostate: diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of two scoring systems. Br J Radiol, 89, 2016, 20151056.
23. Martorana E, Pirola GM, Scialpi M, et al. Lesion volume predicts prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness: validation of its value alone and matched with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score. BJU Int. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.13649.
24. Mertan, F.V., Greer, M.D., Shih, J.H., et al. Prospective evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 196 (2016), 690–696.
25. Muller, B.G., Shih, J.H., Sankineni, S., et al. Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 277 (2015), 741–750.
26. Park, J.J., Park, B.K., Role of PI-RADSv2 with multiparametric MRI in determining who needs active surveillance or definitive treatment according to PRIAS. J Magn Reson Imaging 45 (2017), 1753–1759.
27. Park, S.Y., Jung, D.C., Oh, Y.T., et al. Prostate cancer: PI-RADS version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology 280 (2016), 108–116.
28. Polanec, S., Helbich, T.H., Bickel, H., et al. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur J Radiol 85 (2016), 1125–1131.
29. Rastinehad, A.R., Waingankar, N., Turkbey, B., et al. Comparison of multiparametric MRI scoring systems and the impact on cancer detection in patients undergoing MR US fusion guided prostate biopsies. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0143404.
30. Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM. Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161124.
31. Stanzione, A., Imbriaco, M., Cocozza, S., et al. Biparametric 3T magnetic resonance imaging for prostatic cancer detection in a biopsy-naive patient population: a further improvement of PI-RADS v2?. Eur J Radiol 85 (2016), 2269–2274.
32. Tan N, Lin WC, Khoshnoodi P, et al. In-Bore 3-T MR-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2-based diagnostic performance for detection of prostate cancer. Radiology. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152827.
33. Tewes, S., Mokov, N., Hartung, D., et al. Standardized reporting of prostate MRI: comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 1 and version 2. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0162879.
34. Washino, S., Okochi, T., Saito, K., et al. Combination of PI-RADS score and PSA density predicts biopsy outcome in biopsy naive patients. BJU Int 119 (2017), 225–233.
35. Woo, S., Kim, S.Y., Lee, J., Kim, S.H., Cho, J.Y., PI-RADS version 2 for prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy: a preliminary study in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason Score 7 (3 + 4) prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 26 (2016), 3580–3587.
36. Zhao, C., Gao, G., Fang, D., et al. The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Imaging 40 (2016), 885–888.
37. de Rooij, M., Hamoen, E.H., Futterer, J.J., Barentsz, J.O., Rovers, M.M., Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 202 (2014), 343–351.
38. Shah, Z.K., Elias, S.N., Abaza, R., et al. Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 22 (2015), 467–474.
39. Mazaheri, Y., Vargas, H.A., Nyman, G., Akin, O., Hricak, H., Image artifacts on prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: trade-offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla. Acad Radiol 20 (2013), 1041–1047.
40. Deeks, J.J., Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 323 (2001), 157–162.
41. Deeks, J.J.W.S., Davenport, C., Guide to the contents of a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy protocol. Deeks, J.J., Bossuyt, P.M., Gatsonis, C., (eds.) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 1.0.0. Chapter 4, 2013, The Cochrane Collaboration http://srdta.cochrane.org/.