Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of PI-RADS V1 and PI-RADS V2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Urology Journal,
Vol. 18 No. 01 (2021),
17 Esfand 2021
,
Page 28-34
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i01.5532
Abstract
Purpose: In order to comprehensively determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 1 (PI-RADS V1) and PI-RADS version 2 (PI-RADS V2) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis.
Materials and Methods: The literatures were screened from the databases, including the Pubmed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane Library up to January 20th, 2020. The meta-analysis was conducted by Meta-DiSc and quality assessment was performed by using the QUADAS. Furthermore, the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), as well as receiver operating curve (ROC) related to diagnostic accuracy were pooled.
Results: A total of 6 articles containing 814 participants (379 patients) were included in the study. For PI-RADS
V1, the combined sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.85), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-
0.85), 4.58 (95% CI: 2.55-8.22), 0.24 (95% CI: 0.18-0.34) and 24.00 (95% CI: 10.38-55.51). With regard to PIRADS
V2, the combined sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.91), 0.81 (95%
CI: 0.77-0.84), 4.34 (95% CI: 1.98-9.49), 0.16 (95% CI: 0.08-0.32) and 33.39 (95% CI: 15.05-74.05), respectively.
Furthermore, except that the sensitivity of PI-RADS V2 was significantly greater than that of PI-RADS V1 (P =
0.027), there was no remarkably difference in other indicators for the diagnosis of PCa between the two versions.
Conclusion: Both PI-RADS V1 and PI-RADS V2 showed good diagnostic performance for PCa diagnosis; moreover, there was no difference in the diagnostic effect between them.
- PI-RADS V1
- PI-RADS V2
- Prostate cancer
- Multiparametric MRI
How to Cite
References
Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet‐Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. Ca A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2015;65:87-108.
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International journal of cancer. 2015;136:E359-E86.
Helmstaedter L, Riemann JF. Pancreatic cancer—EUS and early diagnosis. Langenbecks Archives of Surgery. 2008;393:923.
Greene KL, Albertsen PCBabaian RJ. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. Journal of Urology. 2009;182:2232-41.
Adhyam M, Gupta AK. A Review on the Clinical Utility of PSA in Cancer Prostate. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2012;3:120-9.
Bokhorst LP, Bangma CH, Leenders GJLHV, et al. Prostate-specific Antigen–Based Prostate Cancer Screening: Reduction of Prostate Cancer Mortality After Correction for Nonattendance and Contamination in the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. European Urology. 2014;65:329-36.
Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, et al. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World Journal of Urology. 2016;34:525-32.
Pummer K, Rieken M, Augustin H, Gutschi T, Shariat SF. Innovations in diagnostic imaging of localized prostate cancer. World Journal of Urology. 2014;32:881-90.
Axel H, Bastian PJ, Joaquim B, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. European Urology. 2014;65:124-37.
Iu PP. ESUR prostate MR guidelines. European radiology. 2013;23:2320-1.
Leonardo KB, Geert L, Baris T, Emerson Leandro G, Barentsz JO. Prostate Cancer: The European Society of Urogenital Radiology Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Criteria for Predicting Extraprostatic Extension by Using 3-T Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology. 2015;276:479.
Junker D, Quentin M, Nagele U, et al. Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for mpMRI of the prostate: a whole-mount step-section analysis. World Journal of Urology. 2015;33:1023-30.
Auer T, Edlinger M, Bektic J, et al. Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results. World Journal of Urology. 2017;35:687-93.
Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. European Journal of Radiology. 2016;85:726-31.
Wang X, Bao J, Ping X, et al. The diagnostic value of PI‑RADS V1 and V2 using multiparametric MRI in transition zone prostate clinical cancer. 2018.
Reitsma J, Rutjes A, Whiting P, Vlassov V, Leeflang M. Chapter 9: Assessing methodological quality In Deeks JJ, editor;, Bossuyt PM, editor;, & Gatsonis C., editor.(Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 1.0. 0 The Cochrane Collaboration; 2009.
J L, JP I, CH S. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Annals of internal medicine. 1997;127:820-6.
J Z, V A, A M, K K, A C. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC medical research methodology. 2006;6:31.
X W, J B, X P, et al. The diagnostic value of PI-RADS V1 and V2 using multiparametric MRI in transition zone prostate clinical cancer. Oncology letters. 2018;16:3201-6.
Feng ZY, Wang L, Min XD, Wang SG, Wang GP, Cai J. Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 1 versus Version 2. Chinese medical journal. 2016;129:2451.
Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, et al. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. European Journal of Radiology. 2016;85:1125-31.
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. 2016;11:e0162879.
Maggi M, Panebianco V, Mosca A, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 category cases at multiparametric magnetic resonance for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European urology focus. 2019.
Zhai L, Fan Y, Meng Y, Feng X, Yu W, Jin J. The role of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score in Gleason 3+ 3 active surveillance candidates enrollment: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases. 2019;22:235-43.
Barkovich EJ, Shankar PR, Westphalen AC. A systematic review of the existing Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) literature and subset meta-analysis of PI-RADSv2 categories stratified by Gleason scores. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:847-54.
Hamoen EHJ, Maarten DR, J Alfred W, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. European Urology. 2015;67:1112-21.
Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, et al. Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. European radiology. 2013;23:3185-90.
Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, et al. Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. European Journal of Radiology. 2014;83:2103-8.
Rapha?Lle RP, Pierre M, Fran?Ois C, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and Likert Scoring System: Multiparametric MR Imaging Validation Study to Screen Patients for Initial Biopsy. Radiology. 2015;275:458.
Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ. PI-RADS Version 2: A Pictorial Update. Radiographics A Review Publication of the Radiological Society of North America Inc. 2016;36:150234.
Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S, et al. Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology. 2015;277:741.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. European urology. 2019.
Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate imaging-reporting and data system steering committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions. European urology. 2019;75:385-96.
Hoffmann R, Logan C, O’Callaghan M, Gormly K, Chan K, Foreman D. Does the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 improve accuracy in reporting anterior lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)? International urology and nephrology. 2018;50:13-9.
Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, et al. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. European Journal of Radiology. 2016;85:1125-31.
Cormio L, Cindolo L, Troiano F, et al. Development and internal validation of novel nomograms based on benign prostatic obstruction-related parameters to predict the risk of prostate cancer at first prostate biopsy. Frontiers in oncology. 2018;8:438.
Turner RM, Jonathan D, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Julian Pt H. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2012;41:818-27.
- Abstract Viewed: 41 times
- 5532/pdf Downloaded: 52 times