Positive Predictive Value of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Kasivisvanathan, 2018, MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis, N Engl J Med, 378, 1767, 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 Ahmed, 2017, Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study, Lancet, 389, 815, 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 Rouvière, 2019, Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study, Lancet Oncol, 20, 100, 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2 van der Leest, 2019, Eur Urol, 75, 570, 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023 Stabile, 2020, Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions, Nat Rev Urol, 17, 41, 10.1038/s41585-019-0212-4 Peacock, 2010 Sathianathen, 2020, Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the prostate imaging reporting and data system era: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Eur Urol, 78, 402, 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048 Westphalen, 2020, Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel, Radiology, 296, 76, 10.1148/radiol.2020190646 Padhani, 2020, Re: Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel, Eur Urol, 78, 633, 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.015 Park, 2020, Risk stratification of prostate cancer according to PI-RADS version 2 categories: meta-analysis for prospective studies, J Urol, 204, 1, 10.1097/JU.0000000000001306 Barkovich, 2019, 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, Radiology, 212, 847 Moher, 2015, Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement, Syst Rev, 4, 1, 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 Whiting, 2011, QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies, Ann Intern Med, 155, 529, 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 Egger, 1997, Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test, BMJ, 315, 629, 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 Kasivisvanathan, 2019, Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Eur Urol, 76, 284, 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.043 Higgins, 2003, Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses, BMJ, 327, 557, 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 DerSimonian, 1986, Meta-analysis in clinical trials, Control Clin Trials, 7, 177, 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 Stabile, 2020, Factors influencing variability in the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic literature review, Eur Urol Oncol, 3, 145, 10.1016/j.euo.2020.02.005 Cleveland, 1979, Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots, J Am Stat Assoc, 74, 829, 10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038 Friedl, 2017, Prostate-specific antigen parameters and prostate health index enhance prostate cancer prediction with the in-bore 3-T magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy after negative 12-core biopsy, Urology, 110, 148, 10.1016/j.urology.2017.08.019 Felker, 2017, Risk stratification among men with prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 category 3 transition zone lesions: is biopsy always necessary?, Am J Roentgenol, 209, 1272, 10.2214/AJR.17.18008 Venderink, 2017, Retrospective comparison of direct in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy and fusion-guided biopsy in patients with MRI lesions which are likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer, World J Urol, 35, 1849, 10.1007/s00345-017-2085-6 Ullrich, 2018, Risk stratification of equivocal lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, J Urol, 199, 691, 10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.074 Ristau, 2018, Defining novel and practical metrics to assess the deliverables of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy, J Urol, 199, 969, 10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.124 Bastian-Jordan, 2018, Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and targeted biopsy, Comparison of PIRADS and Gleason grading, J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol, 62, 183, 10.1111/1754-9485.12678 Hansen, 2018, Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer, BJU Int, 122, 40, 10.1111/bju.14049 Del Monte, 2018, MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy: performing exclusively targeted biopsies for the early detection of prostate cancer, Radiol Med, 123, 227, 10.1007/s11547-017-0825-8 Sheridan, 2018, Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer associated with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3 (equivocal) lesions identified on multiparametric prostate MRI, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 210, 347, 10.2214/AJR.17.18516 Nguyentat, 2018, Validation of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2: a retrospective analysis, Curr Probl Diagn Radiol, 47, 404, 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.10.002 Washino, 2017, Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients, BJU Int, 119, 225, 10.1111/bju.13465 Chang, 2017, The influence of serum prostate-specific antigen on the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy versus saturation biopsy in patients with previous negative biopsy, Biomed Res Int, 2017, 10.1155/2017/7617148 Fourcade, 2018, The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, Scand J Urol, 0, 1 Sheridan, 2018, MRI-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 category 5 lesions found false-positive at multiparametric prostate MRI, Am J Roentgenol, 210, W218, 10.2214/AJR.17.18680 Maxeiner, 2018, Primary magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate, BJU Int, 122, 211, 10.1111/bju.14212 Borkowetz, 2019, Evaluation of transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy compared to transrectal systematic biopsy in the prediction of tumour aggressiveness in patients with previously negative biopsy, Urol Int, 102, 20, 10.1159/000492495 Zhou, 2018, Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy and template-guided transperineal saturation biopsy, Medicine (Baltimore), 97 Tae, 2018, Initial experience of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion transperineal biopsy: biopsy techniques and results for 75 patients, Investig Clin Urol, 59, 363, 10.4111/icu.2018.59.6.363 Choi, 2019, Comparison of cancer detection rates between TRUS-guided biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy according to PSA level in biopsy-naive patients: a propensity score matching analysis, Clin Genitourin Cancer, 17, e19, 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.09.007 Kim, 2019, Outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted biopsy of prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 lesions, World J Urol, 37, 1581, 10.1007/s00345-018-2565-3 Luzzago, 2019, Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging second opinion may reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies: time to improve radiologists’ training program?, Clin Genitourin Cancer, 17, 88, 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.10.006 Felker, 2016, In-bore magnetic resonance-guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, Abdom Radiol, 41, 954, 10.1007/s00261-016-0750-7 Wegelin, 2019, The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies, Eur Urol, 75, 582, 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040 Boesen, 2018, Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men: the Biparametric MRI for Detection of Prostate Cancer (BIDOC) study, JAMA Netw Open, 1, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0219 Ullrich, 2019, Analysis of PI-RADS 4 cases: management recommendations for negatively biopsied patients, Eur J Radiol, 113, 1, 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.01.030 Nakanishi, 2019, Who can avoid systematic biopsy without missing clinically significant prostate cancer in men who undergo magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy?, Clin Genitourin Cancer, 17, e664, 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.03.011 Kaushal, 2019, Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsies increase the rate of cancer detection in populations with a low incidence of prostate cancer, Investig Clin Urol, 60, 156, 10.4111/icu.2019.60.3.156 Stabile, 2018, Not all multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsies are equal: the impact of the type of approach and operator expertise on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, Eur Urol Oncol, 1, 120, 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.002 Mannaerts, 2018, Prostate cancer risk assessment in biopsy-naïve patients: the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsy and systematic TRUS biopsy, Eur Urol Oncol, 1, 109, 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.010 Westphalen, 2019, Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with PIRADS v2 scores, PSA density, and ADC values in regions with and without mpMRI visible lesions, Int Braz J Urol, 45, 713, 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0768 Hanna, 2019, Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy improves but does not replace standard template biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer, J Urol, 202, 944, 10.1097/JU.0000000000000359 Kenigsberg, 2018, Optimizing the number of cores targeted during prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion target biopsy, Eur Urol Oncol, 1, 418, 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.006 Ma, 2017, The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance, Eur Urol, 71, 174, 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.021 Elkhoury, 2019, Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naive: the Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) study, JAMA Surg, 154, 811, 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734 Lughezzani, 2019, Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer, Eur Urol Oncol, 2, 329, 10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.001 Exterkate, 2020, Is There still a need for repeated systematic biopsies in patients with previous negative biopsies in the era of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies of the prostate?, Eur Urol Oncol, 3, 216, 10.1016/j.euo.2019.06.005 D’Agostino, 2019, Comparison between “in-bore” MRI guided prostate biopsy and standard ultrasound guided biopsy in the patient with suspicious prostate cancer: preliminary results, Arch Ital Di Urol e Androl, 91, 87 Dell’Oglio, 2020, There is no way to avoid systematic prostate biopsies in addition to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies, Eur Urol Oncol, 3, 112, 10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.002 Tamada, 2019, Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer, Eur J Radiol, 121, 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108704 Wang, 2019, Surface-projection-based transperineal cognitive fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate: an original technique with a good cancer detection rate, BMC Urol, 19, 107, 10.1186/s12894-019-0535-8 Fujii, 2020, Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography fusion targeted prostate biopsy finds more significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve Japanese men compared with the standard biopsy, Int J Urol, 27, 140, 10.1111/iju.14149 Baboudjian, 2020, MRI-targeted biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: have the guidelines changed our practices and our prostate cancer detection rate?, Int Urol Nephrol, 52, 611, 10.1007/s11255-019-02353-5 Claros, 2020, Comparison of initial experience with transrectal magnetic resonance imaging cognitive guided micro-ultrasound biopsies versus established transperineal robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsies for prostate cancer, J Urol, 203, 918, 10.1097/JU.0000000000000692 Tan, 2017, In-bore 3-T MR-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2-based diagnostic performance for detection of prostate cancer, Radiology, 283, 130, 10.1148/radiol.2016152827 Zhang, 2020, Comparison of clinically significant prostate cancer detection by MRI cognitive biopsy and in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy for naïve biopsy patients, Transl Androl Urol, 9, 243, 10.21037/tau.2020.02.20 Patel, 2020, Robotic-assisted magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion results in higher significant cancer detection compared to cognitive prostate targeting in biopsy naive men, Transl Androl Urol, 9, 601, 10.21037/tau.2020.01.33 Essid, 2020, Evolution of prostate cancer diagnosis: Retrospective analysis of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsies protocol in routine practice and patients management, Transl Androl Urol, 9, 629, 10.21037/tau.2020.02.02 Lee, 2020, Multiparametric MRI-ultrasonography software fusion prostate biopsy: initial results using a stereotactic robotic assisted transperineal prostate biopsy platform comparing systematic vs targeted biopsy, BJU Int., 126, 568, 10.1111/bju.15118 Schiavina, 2017, “In-bore” MRI-guided prostate biopsy using an endorectal nonmagnetic device: a prospective study of 70 consecutive patients, Clin Genitourin Cancer, 15, 417, 10.1016/j.clgc.2017.01.013 Jordan, 2017, Evaluating the performance of PI-RADS v2 in the non-academic setting, Abdom Radiol, 42, 2725, 10.1007/s00261-017-1169-5 Syed, 2017, Prostate zonal anatomy correlates with the detection of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion–targeted biopsy in patients with a solitary PI-RADS v2–scored lesion, Urol Oncol, 35, 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.04.011 Alberts, 2017, Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, BJU Int, 120, 511, 10.1111/bju.13836 Demirtaş, 2019, A single-center experience: does MRI-guided target prostate biopsy meet expectations?, Cureus, 11 Stabile, 2018, Association between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score for the index lesion and multifocal, clinically significant prostate cancer, Eur Urol Oncol, 1, 29, 10.1016/j.euo.2018.01.002 Druskin, 2018, Combining Prostate Health Index density, magnetic resonance imaging and prior negative biopsy status to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, BJU Int, 121, 619, 10.1111/bju.14098 Schoots, 2020, Multivariate risk prediction tools including MRI for individualized biopsy decision in prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions, World J Urol, 38, 517, 10.1007/s00345-019-02707-9 Distler, 2017, The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADSTM for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction, J Urol, 198, 575, 10.1016/j.juro.2017.03.130 Falagario UG, Jambor I, Lantz A, et al. Combined use of prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging for prostate biopsy decision planning: a retrospective multi-institutional study using the Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcome Database (PROMOD). Eur Urol Oncol. In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.014. Schoots IG, Padhani AR. Risk-adapted biopsy decision based on prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density for enhanced biopsy avoidance in first prostate cancer diagnostic evaluation. BJU Int. In press. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15277. Tschirdewahn S, Wiesenfarth M, Bonekamp D, et al. Detection of significant prostate cancer using target saturation in transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography–fusion biopsy. Eur Urol Focus. In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.020. Hansen, 2020, Optimising the number of cores for magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted and systematic transperineal prostate biopsy, BJU Int, 125, 260, 10.1111/bju.14865 Moldovan, 2017, What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel, Eur Urol, 72, 250, 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026 Stabile, 2021, Assessing the clinical value of positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in young men with a suspicion of prostate cancer, Eur Urol Oncol, 4, 594, 10.1016/j.euo.2019.05.006 EAU Prostate Guidelines, 2020 Lu, 2019, Role of core number and location in targeted magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy, Eur Urol, 76, 14, 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.008 Zhang, 2019, Value of increasing biopsy cores per target with cognitive MRI-targeted transrectal us prostate biopsy, Radiology, 291, 83, 10.1148/radiol.2019180712