medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2025, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2025; 85 (6)

Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis of 4954 patients

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

Language: Spanish
References: 35
Page: 1-14
PDF size: 571.48 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has proven to be crucial for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), a disease that remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in men. Studies such as PROMIS and PRECISION show that, when combined with targeted biopsy, mpMRI outperforms systematic transrectal biopsy with 10 to 12 cores in diagnostic accuracy.
Objective: to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of mpMRI in an updated context. Design and methods: this study is a subanalysis of a protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024552125). A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, CENTRAL Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov, including articles published between 2012 and 2024. Studies comparing mpMRI with biparametric MRI (bpMRI) were selected. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were analyzed through a bivariate model; other diagnostic efficiency indicators were obtained using a univariate model.
Results: nineteen studies with a total of 4954 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity was 90.7 %, specificity 64.4 %, and AUC 0.898, confirming its high diagnostic accuracy.
Limitations: the main limitation was being a subanalysis subject to the guidelines of the original protocol.
Originality and value: this is an updated meta-analysis with robust methodology and a large sample size that reinforces current evidence.
Conclusions: the results demonstrate that mpMRI, even in an updated context and with a large sample size, maintains its high sensitivity, confirming it as an essential tool for the early diagnosis of csPCa.


REFERENCES

  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