A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer
- 432 Downloads
This meta-analysis was undertaken to review the diagnostic accuracy of PI-RADS V2 for prostate cancer (PCa) detection with multiparametric MR (mp-MR).
A comprehensive literature search of electronic databases was performed by two observers independently. Inclusion criteria were original research using the PI-RADS V2 system in reporting prostate MRI. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Data necessary to complete 2 × 2 contingency tables were obtained from the included studies.
Thirteen studies (2,049 patients) were analysed. This is an initial meta-analysis of PI-RADs V2 and the overall diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing PCa was as follows: pooled sensitivity, 0.85 (0.78–0.91); pooled specificity, 0.71 (0.60–0.80); pooled positive likelihood ratio (LR+), 2.92 (2.09–4.09); pooled negative likelihood ratio (LR–), 0.21 (0.14–0.31); pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), 14.08 (7.93–25.01), respectively. Positive predictive values ranged from 0.54 to 0.97 and negative predictive values ranged from 0.26 to 0.92.
Currently available evidence indicates that PI-RADS V2 appears to have good diagnostic accuracy in patients with PCa lesions with high sensitivity and moderate specificity. However, no recommendation regarding the best threshold can be provided because of heterogeneity.
• PI-RADS V2 shows good diagnostic accuracy for PCa detection.
• Initially pooled specificity of PI-RADS v2 remains moderate.
• PCa detection is increased by experienced radiologists.
• There is currently a high heterogeneity in prostate diagnostics with MRI.
KeywordsProstate cancer Magnetic resonance imaging PI-RADS V2 Diagnosis Meta-analysis
- 95% CI
95% confidence interval
Area under the SROC curve
Diagnostic odds ratio
European Society of Urogenital Radiology
Negative likelihood ratio
Positive likelihood ratio
MR proton spectroscopy
- PI-RADS V2
Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
Summary receiver-operating curve
Transitional zone assessment
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Guarantor name: Zhang xiaoling firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because this study is a meta- analysis.
Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this study is a meta- analysis.
Methodology: diagnostic or prognostic study
- 7.Baris T, Haresh M, Omer A et al (2013) Prostate cancer:can multiparametric mr imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 268(11):144–152Google Scholar
- 21.Washino S, Okochi T, Saitoet K et al (2016) Combination of PI-RADS score and PSA density predicts biopsy outcome in biopsy naive patients. BJU Int 2:1–9Google Scholar
- 22.Li BS, Wang L, Deng M et al (2016) The correlation between multi-parametric MRI of prostate imaging reporting and data system score and transrectal ultrasound guided needle biopsy. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging 7:5321–5326Google Scholar
- 29.Li P. (2015) The preliminary evaluation of PI-RADS v2 and Likert scale in the diagnosis of prostate cancer using mp-MRI. Suzhou UniversityGoogle Scholar
- 32.Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R et al (2015) Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 22(4):467–74.33. Google Scholar
- 33.Sertdemir M, Schoenberg SO, Sourbron S, et al. (2013) Interscanner comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in prostate cancer: 1.5 versus 3 T MRI. Invest Radiol 48(2):92–97Google Scholar