Cargando…

Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level

BACKGROUND: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) standardizes reporting of multiparametric MRI of the prostate. Assigned assessment categories are a risk stratification algorithm, higher categories indicate a higher probability of clinically significant cancer co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Oerther, Benedict, Engel, Hannes, Bamberg, Fabian, Sigle, August, Gratzke, Christian, Benndorf, Matthias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9184264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34230616
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1
_version_ 1784724474993573888
author Oerther, Benedict
Engel, Hannes
Bamberg, Fabian
Sigle, August
Gratzke, Christian
Benndorf, Matthias
author_facet Oerther, Benedict
Engel, Hannes
Bamberg, Fabian
Sigle, August
Gratzke, Christian
Benndorf, Matthias
author_sort Oerther, Benedict
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) standardizes reporting of multiparametric MRI of the prostate. Assigned assessment categories are a risk stratification algorithm, higher categories indicate a higher probability of clinically significant cancer compared to lower categories. PI-RADSv2.1 does not define these probabilities numerically. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the cancer detection rates (CDR) of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories on lesion level and patient level. METHODS: Two independent reviewers screen a systematic PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL search for relevant articles (primary outcome: clinically significant cancer, index test: prostate MRI reading according to PI-RADSv2.1, reference standard: histopathology). We perform meta-analyses of proportions with random-effects models for the CDR of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories for clinically significant cancer. We perform subgroup analysis according to lesion localization to test for differences of CDR between peripheral zone lesions and transition zone lesions. RESULTS: A total of 17 articles meet the inclusion criteria and data is independently extracted by two reviewers. Lesion level analysis includes 1946 lesions, patient level analysis includes 1268 patients. On lesion level analysis, CDR are 2% (95% confidence interval: 0–8%) for PI-RADS 1, 4% (1–9%) for PI-RADS 2, 20% (13–27%) for PI-RADS 3, 52% (43–61%) for PI-RADS 4, 89% (76–97%) for PI-RADS 5. On patient level analysis, CDR are 6% (0–20%) for PI-RADS 1, 9% (5–13%) for PI-RADS 2, 16% (7–27%) for PI-RADS 3, 59% (39–78%) for PI-RADS 4, 85% (73–94%) for PI-RADS 5. Higher categories are significantly associated with higher CDR (P < 0.001, univariate meta-regression), no systematic difference of CDR between peripheral zone lesions and transition zone lesions is identified in subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates of CDR demonstrate that PI-RADSv2.1 stratifies lesions and patients as intended. Our results might serve as an initial evidence base to discuss management strategies linked to assessment categories.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9184264
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91842642022-06-11 Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level Oerther, Benedict Engel, Hannes Bamberg, Fabian Sigle, August Gratzke, Christian Benndorf, Matthias Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Article BACKGROUND: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) standardizes reporting of multiparametric MRI of the prostate. Assigned assessment categories are a risk stratification algorithm, higher categories indicate a higher probability of clinically significant cancer compared to lower categories. PI-RADSv2.1 does not define these probabilities numerically. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the cancer detection rates (CDR) of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories on lesion level and patient level. METHODS: Two independent reviewers screen a systematic PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL search for relevant articles (primary outcome: clinically significant cancer, index test: prostate MRI reading according to PI-RADSv2.1, reference standard: histopathology). We perform meta-analyses of proportions with random-effects models for the CDR of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories for clinically significant cancer. We perform subgroup analysis according to lesion localization to test for differences of CDR between peripheral zone lesions and transition zone lesions. RESULTS: A total of 17 articles meet the inclusion criteria and data is independently extracted by two reviewers. Lesion level analysis includes 1946 lesions, patient level analysis includes 1268 patients. On lesion level analysis, CDR are 2% (95% confidence interval: 0–8%) for PI-RADS 1, 4% (1–9%) for PI-RADS 2, 20% (13–27%) for PI-RADS 3, 52% (43–61%) for PI-RADS 4, 89% (76–97%) for PI-RADS 5. On patient level analysis, CDR are 6% (0–20%) for PI-RADS 1, 9% (5–13%) for PI-RADS 2, 16% (7–27%) for PI-RADS 3, 59% (39–78%) for PI-RADS 4, 85% (73–94%) for PI-RADS 5. Higher categories are significantly associated with higher CDR (P < 0.001, univariate meta-regression), no systematic difference of CDR between peripheral zone lesions and transition zone lesions is identified in subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates of CDR demonstrate that PI-RADSv2.1 stratifies lesions and patients as intended. Our results might serve as an initial evidence base to discuss management strategies linked to assessment categories. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-07-06 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9184264/ /pubmed/34230616 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Oerther, Benedict
Engel, Hannes
Bamberg, Fabian
Sigle, August
Gratzke, Christian
Benndorf, Matthias
Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level
title Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level
title_full Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level
title_fullStr Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level
title_full_unstemmed Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level
title_short Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level
title_sort cancer detection rates of the pi-radsv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9184264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34230616
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1
work_keys_str_mv AT oertherbenedict cancerdetectionratesofthepiradsv21assessmentcategoriessystematicreviewandmetaanalysisonlesionlevelandpatientlevel
AT engelhannes cancerdetectionratesofthepiradsv21assessmentcategoriessystematicreviewandmetaanalysisonlesionlevelandpatientlevel
AT bambergfabian cancerdetectionratesofthepiradsv21assessmentcategoriessystematicreviewandmetaanalysisonlesionlevelandpatientlevel
AT sigleaugust cancerdetectionratesofthepiradsv21assessmentcategoriessystematicreviewandmetaanalysisonlesionlevelandpatientlevel
AT gratzkechristian cancerdetectionratesofthepiradsv21assessmentcategoriessystematicreviewandmetaanalysisonlesionlevelandpatientlevel
AT benndorfmatthias cancerdetectionratesofthepiradsv21assessmentcategoriessystematicreviewandmetaanalysisonlesionlevelandpatientlevel