187 320
used for clinically significant cancer needs to be empha-
sized. Our analyses using
[3_TD$DIFF]
meta-regression and subgroup
analyses may explain some of the heterogeneity, but a
portion remains unexplained. Another important limitation
is the small number of included studies for head-to-head
comparison between PI-RADSv1 and PI-RADSv2. However,
we were able to elucidate statistically significant difference
in the sensitivity between the two versions using only six
studies, which have been published until now.
4.
Conclusions
PI-RADSv2 shows good performance for the detection of PCa
with pooled sensitivity of 0.89 and specificity of 0.73. PI-
RADSv2 has higher pooled sensitivity compared with PI-
RADSv1 without significantly different specificity.
Author contributions:
Sang Youn Kim had full access to all the data in the
study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the
accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design:
Woo, Suh, S.Y. Kim.
Acquisition of data:
Woo, Suh, S.Y. Kim.
Analysis and interpretation of data:
Woo, Suh, S.Y. Kim.
Drafting of the manuscript:
Woo.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content:
Suh,
S.Y. Kim, Cho, S.H. Kim.
Statistical analysis:
Suh.
Obtaining funding:
None.
Administrative, technical, or material support:
None.
Supervision:
S.Y. Kim, Cho, S.H. Kim.
Other:
None.
Financial disclosures:
Sang Youn Kim certifies that all conflicts of
interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and
affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the
manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultan-
cies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties,
or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: None.
Funding/Support and role of the sponsor:
None.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eururo.2017.01.042.
References
[1] American Cancer Society. Key statistics for prostate cancer.
www. cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/ prostate-cancer-key-statistics.
[2]
Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multi- parametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011;261:46–66.[3]
Ruprecht O, Weisser P, Bodelle B, Ackermann H, Vogl TJ. MRI of the prostate: interobserver agreement compared with histopathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:456–60.
[4]
Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could stan- dardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;37:48–58.
[5]
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746–57.
[6]
Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic reso- nance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;67:1112–21.[7]
Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, et al. The accuracy of multi- parametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level—can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer? Urol Oncol 2014;32, 45 e17–22.
[8]
Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imag- ing Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiol- ogy 2013;269:482–92.
[9]
Hansford BG, 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 2015;275:448–57.[10]
Baur AD, 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 2014;49:411–20.[11]
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imag- ing-Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16–40.[12]
Liberati A, Altman DG, 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 2009;62:e1–34.
[13]
Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, 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 2003;3:25.[14]
Suh CH, Park SH. Successful publication of systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. Kore- an J Radiol 2016;17:5–6.
[15]
Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publica- tion bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–93.
[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 2017;35:687–93.[17]
Baldisserotto M, Neto EJ, 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 2016;44:1354–9.
[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 pros- tate cancer in patients with elevated PSA. Clin Radiol 2017;72:23– 32.[19]
El-Samei HAE-KA, Amin MF, Hassan EE. 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 2016;47:1075–82.[20]
Feng ZY, Wang L, Min XD, Wang SG, Wang GP, Cai J. Prostate cancer detection withmultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Pros- tate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 1 versus version 2. Chin Med J 2016;129:2451–9.
E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y 7 2 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 7 7 – 1 8 8
187