medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2025, Número 6

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev Mex Urol 2025; 85 (6)


Precisión diagnóstica de la resonancia magnética multiparamétrica en cáncer de próstata: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis bivariado de 4954 pacientes

García-Becerra CA, Arias-Gallardo MI, Juárez-García JE, Soltero-Molinar V, Rivera-Rocha MI, Parra-Camaño LF, Aguilera-de Alba KS, García-Becerra N, García-Gutiérrez C

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 35
Paginas: 1-14
Archivo PDF: 571.48 Kb.


RESUMEN

Introducción: la resonancia magnética multiparamétrica (RM-Mp) ha demostrado ser crucial para detectar cáncer de próstata clínicamente significativo (CaPCs), una enfermedad que sigue siendo una de las principales causas de morbilidad y mortalidad en hombres. Estudios como PROMIS y PRECISION muestran que, combinada con biopsia dirigida, la RM-Mp supera a la biopsia transrectal sistematizada de 10 a 12 muestras en precisión diagnóstica. Objetivo: evaluar la eficacia diagnóstica de la RM-Mp en un contexto actualizado.
Diseño y metodología: este estudio es un subanálisis del protocolo registrado en PROSPERO (CRD42024552125). Se realizó una revisión sistemática utilizando PubMed, CENTRAL Cochrane y ClinicalTrials. gov, incluyendo artículos publicados entre 2012 y 2024. Se seleccionaron estudios que compararan la RM-Mp con la resonancia magnética biparamétrica. Se evaluó el riesgo de sesgo con la herramienta QUADAS- 2. La sensibilidad, especificidad y el área bajo la curva (AUC) se analizaron mediante un modelo de bivariado; otros indicadores de eficiencia diagnóstica se obtuvieron mediante un modelo univariado.
Resultados: se incluyeron 19 estudios con 4954 pacientes. La sensibilidad global fue del 90.7 %, la especificidad del 64.4 % y el AUC de 0.898, confirmando su alta precisión diagnóstica.
Limitaciones: la principal limitación fue tratarse de un subanálisis sujeto a los lineamientos del protocolo original.
Originalidad y valor: es un metaanálisis actualizado, con metodología robusta y gran tamaño muestral, que refuerza la evidencia actual.
Conclusiones: los resultados demuestran que la RM-Mp, incluso en un contexto actualizado y con un tamaño muestral amplio, mantiene su alta sensibilidad, lo que la convierte en una herramienta esencial para el diagnóstico temprano del CaPCs.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Rawla P. Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer.World Journal of Oncology. 2019;10(2): 63–89.https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1191.

  2. Gandaglia G, Leni R, Bray F, Fleshner N,Freedland SJ, Kibel A, et al. Epidemiology andPrevention of Prostate Cancer. European UrologyOncology. 2021;4(6): 877–892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.09.006.

  3. Gnanapragasam VJ, Greenberg D, Burnet N.Urinary symptoms and prostate cancer-themisconception that may be preventing earlierpresentation and better survival outcomes.BMC medicine. 2022;20(1): 264. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02453-7.

  4. Matoso A, Epstein JI. Defining clinicallysignificant prostate cancer on the basisof pathological findings. Histopathology.2019;74(1): 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13712.

  5. Sopyllo K, Erickson AM, Mirtti T. GradingEvolution and Contemporary PrognosticBiomarkers of Clinically Significant ProstateCancer. Cancers. 2021;13(4): 628. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13040628.

  6. van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH,Grignon DJ, Evans AJ, Kristiansen G, KweldamCF, et al. The 2019 International Societyof Urological Pathology (ISUP) ConsensusConference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.The American Journal of Surgical Pathology.2020;44(8): e87–e99. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001497.

  7. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van denBroeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al.EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines onProstate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening,Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with CurativeIntent. European Urology. 2021;79(2): 243–262.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042.

  8. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F,Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS ProstateImaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015,Version 2. European Urology. 2016;69(1): 16–40.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.

  9. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, ChoykeP, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostateMR guidelines 2012. European Radiology.2012;22(4): 746–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.

  10. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC,Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnosticaccuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUSbiopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a pairedvalidating confirmatory study. Lancet (London,England). 2017;389(10071): 815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.

  11. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M,Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al.MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. The New England Journal ofMedicine. 2018;378(19): 1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.

  12. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I,Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020explanation and elaboration: updated guidanceand exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.2021; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160.

  13. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, MallettS, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2:a revised tool for the quality assessment ofdiagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of InternalMedicine. 2011;155(8): 529–536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.

  14. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, ScholtenRJPM, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariateanalysis of sensitivity and specificity producesinformative summary measures in diagnosticreviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2005;58(10): 982–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.022.

  15. Zhang J, Xu L, Zhang G, Zhang X, Bai X, Ji Z,et al. Comparison between biparametric andmultiparametric MRI diagnosis strategy forprostate cancer in the peripheral zone using PIRADSversion 2.1. Abdominal Radiology (NewYork). 2022;47(8): 2905–2916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03553-x.

  16. Zawaideh JP, Sala E, Shaida N, Koo B, WarrenAY, Carmisciano L, et al. Diagnostic accuracy ofbiparametric versus multiparametric prostateMRI: assessment of contrast benefit in clinicalpractice. European Radiology. 2020;30(7): 4039–4049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06782-0.

  17. Xu L, Zhang G, Shi B, Liu Y, Zou T, YanW, et al. Comparison of biparametric andmultiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostatecancer. Cancer Imaging: The Official Publicationof the International Cancer Imaging Society.2019;19(1): 90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-019-0274-9.

  18. De Visschere P, Lumen N, Ost P, DecaesteckerK, Pattyn E, Villeirs G. Dynamic contrastenhancedimaging has limited added value overT2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weightedimaging when using PI-RADSv2 for diagnosisof clinically significant prostate cancer inpatients with elevated PSA. Clinical Radiology.2017;72(1): 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.09.011.

  19. Thestrup KCD, Logager V, Baslev I, MøllerJM, Hansen RH, Thomsen HS. Biparametricversus multiparametric MRI in the diagnosisof prostate cancer. Acta Radiologica Open.

  20. 2016;5(8): 2058460116663046. https://doi.org/10.1177/2058460116663046.20. Thaiss WM, Moser S, Hepp T, Kruck S, RauschS, Scharpf M, et al. Head-to-head comparisonof biparametric versus multiparametric MRI ofthe prostate before robot-assisted transperinealfusion prostate biopsy. World Journal ofUrology. 2022;40(10): 2431–2438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04120-1.

  21. Tamada T, Kido A, Yamamoto A, TakeuchiM, Miyaji Y, Moriya T, et al. Comparison ofBiparametric and Multiparametric MRI forClinically Significant Prostate Cancer DetectionWith PI-RADS Version 2.1. Journal of magneticresonance imaging: JMRI. 2021;53(1): 283–291.https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27283.

  22. Russo F, Mazzetti S, Regge D, Ambrosini I,Giannini V, Manfredi M, et al. DiagnosticAccuracy of Single-plane Biparametric andMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging inProstate Cancer: A Randomized NoninferiorityTrial in Biopsy-naïve Men. European UrologyOncology. 2021;4(6): 855–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.03.007.

  23. Radtke JP, Boxler S, Kuru TH, Wolf MB, AltCD, Popeneciu IV, et al. Improved detection ofanterior fibromuscular stroma and transitionzone prostate cancer using biparametric andmultiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsyand MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancerand Prostatic Diseases. 2015;18(3): 288–296.https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2015.29.

  24. Pesapane F, Acquasanta M, Meo RD, AgazziGM, Tantrige P, Codari M, et al. Comparison ofSensitivity and Specificity of Biparametric versusMultiparametric Prostate MRI in the Detectionof Prostate Cancer in 431 Men with ElevatedProstate-Specific Antigen Levels. Diagnostics(Basel, Switzerland). 2021;11(7): 1223. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11071223.

  25. Van Nieuwenhove S, Saussez TP, Thiry S,Trefois P, Annet L, Michoux N, et al. Prospectivecomparison of a fast 1.5-T biparametric withthe 3.0-T multiparametric ESUR magneticresonance imaging protocol as a triage testfor men at risk of prostate cancer. BJUinternational. 2019;123(3): 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14538.

  26. Mahajan M, Gupta V, Gupta P, Sharma P, AbrolD. Evaluation of clinically significant prostatecancer using biparametric magnetic resonanceimaging: An evolving concept. Journal ofCancer Research and Therapeutics. 2022;18(6):1640–1645. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_1313_20.

  27. Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Krämer N, Nebelung S,Heidenreich A, Schrading S. AbbreviatedBiparametric Prostate MR Imaging in Menwith Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen.Radiology. 2017;285(2): 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170129.

  28. Gatti M, Faletti R, Calleris G, Giglio J, BerzoviniC, Gentile F, et al. Prostate cancer detectionwith biparametric magnetic resonanceimaging (bpMRI) by readers with differentexperience: performance and comparison withmultiparametric (mpMRI). Abdominal Radiology(New York). 2019;44(5): 1883–1893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3.

  29. van der Leest M, Israël B, Cornel EB, Zámecnik P,Schoots IG, van der Lelij H, et al. High DiagnosticPerformance of Short Magnetic ResonanceImaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detectionin Biopsy-naïve Men: The Next Step in MagneticResonance Imaging Accessibility. EuropeanUrology. 2019;76(5): 574–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.05.029.

  30. Choi MH, Kim CK, Lee YJ, Jung SE. PrebiopsyBiparametric MRI for Clinically SignificantProstate Cancer Detection With PI-RADSVersion 2: A Multicenter Study. AJR. Americanjournal of roentgenology. 2019;212(4): 839–846.https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20498.

  31. Brembilla G, Giganti F, Sidhu H, Imbriaco M,Mallett S, Stabile A, et al. Diagnostic Accuracyof Abbreviated Bi-Parametric MRI (a-bpMRI)for Prostate Cancer Detection and Screening:A Multi-Reader Study. Diagnostics (Basel,Switzerland). 2022;12(2): 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12020231.

  32. Barth BK, De Visschere PJL, Cornelius A,Nicolau C, Vargas HA, Eberli D, et al. Detectionof Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer:Short Dual-Pulse Sequence versus StandardMultiparametric MR Imaging-A MultireaderStudy. Radiology. 2017;284(3): 725–736.https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162020.

  33. Bao J, Zhi R, Hou Y, Zhang J, Wu CJ, Wang XM,et al. Optimized MRI Assessment for ClinicallySignificant Prostate Cancer: A STARD-CompliantTwo-Center Study. Journal of magnetic resonanceimaging: JMRI. 2021;53(4): 1210–1219. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27394.

  34. Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor MJ, Loeb S,Rastinehad AR, Winkler M, et al. Diagnosticaccuracy of magnetic resonance imagingtargeted biopsy techniques compared totransrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of theprostate: a systematic review and metaanalysis.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.2022;25(2): 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00449-7.

  35. Heard JR, Naser-Tavakolian A, Nazmifar M,Ahdoot M. Focal prostate cancer therapy in theera of multiparametric MRI: a review of optionsand outcomes. Prostate Cancer and ProstaticDiseases. 2023;26(2): 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-022-00501-0.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com