February 2019, VOLUME 212
NUMBER 2

Recommend & Share

February 2019, Volume 212, Number 2

Genitourinary Imaging

Original Research

Abbreviated Biparametric Versus Standard Multiparametric MRI for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

+ Affiliations:
1Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, 1095 Jiefang Rd, Wuhan 430030, China.

2Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.

3Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.

Citation: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212: 357-365. 10.2214/AJR.18.20103

ABSTRACT
Next section

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of abbreviated biparametric MRI (bpMRI) versus standard multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for prostate cancer (PCa) using guided biopsy or prostatectomy histopathology results as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed by two researchers independently and the relevant references were assessed. Original research studies comparing bpMRI with mpMRI in diagnosing PCa were included. The methodologic quality of eligible studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Data necessary to complete 2 × 2 contingency tables were obtained to calculate the diagnostic performance of bpMRI and mpMRI using Stata (version 14).

RESULTS. Ten studies were included, and a total of 1705 patients and 3419 lesions were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of mpMRI in diagnosing PCa were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69–0.87), 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70–0.96), 6.9 (95% CI, 2.5–18.8), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16–0.35), and 29 (95% CI, 10–83). Sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR, and DOR of bpMRI in diagnosing PCa were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69–0.87), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.73–0.95), 6.4 (95% CI, 2.9–14.5), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16–0.35), and 27 (95% CI, 11–67). Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between bpMRI and mpMRI for the diagnosis of PCa, and the areas under the summary ROC (SROC) curves were 0.89 and 0.88, respectively (p = 0.9944). Results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent, and the area under the SROC curve for bpMRI and mpMRI was 0.89 for both (p = 0.9349).

CONCLUSION. The available evidence indicates that bpMRI and mpMRI have similar diagnostic efficacy in diagnosing PCa.

Keywords: biparametric MRI, diagnosis, meta-analysis, multiparametric MRI, prostate cancer

Throughout the world, about one patient dies of prostate cancer (PCa) every 4 minutes [1]. The prevalence of PCa in older men will continue to rise in the future because the world's mean life expectancy is constantly on the rise [1]. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, PCa is expected to become a major contributor to the “doubling by 2030 of annual cancer cases” [2].

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate is currently the most accurate imaging method for detection, localization, and staging of PCa [3], which was confirmed by a meta-analysis [4]. An mpMRI examination includes anatomic imaging sequences (T2-weighted imaging and T1-weighted imaging) and functional imaging sequences (DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI [DCE-MRI]) and has become a recognized standard method for evaluating clinically significant PCa [5]. With combined morphologic and functional MRI, mpMRI could help to improve diagnostic sensitivity and specificity correlated to biopsy Gleason grades [6]. According to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) scoring system, adopting mpMRI is recommended as a noninvasive and standard diagnostic tool compared with ultrasound-guided biopsy [7].

A recent study showed that the additional value of DCE-MRI to T2-weighted imaging and DWI was minimal: PCa detection was aided by the addition of DCE-MRI in only four of 125 peripheral zone (PZ) tumors ≥ 0.5 mL and 0 of 27 PZ tumors < 0.5 mL [8]. However, in another study, the authors found that the addition of DCE-MRI to DWI scores in the PZ yielded substantial improvements in the probability of PCa detection [9]. In yet another study, investigators reported that comparable accuracy could be achieved simply by a combination of bipara-metric MRI (bpMRI) and lesion volume [10]. In addition, clinical utilization of bpMRI helps to reduce costs and scanning time [10]. Three previous meta-analyses showed that the addition of DCE-MRI did not improve PCa detection compared with T2-weighted imaging and DWI alone [1113]. In the current study, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare abbreviated bpMRI versus standard mpMRI in diagnosing PCa.

Materials and Methods
Previous sectionNext section
Evidence Acquisition

This systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out according to the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed (U.S. National Library of Medicine), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), and Cochrane Library databases was performed by two researchers independently to identify studies that evaluated the diagnostic value of bpMRI versus mpMRI for PCa with and using transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy, MRI-TRUS fusion targeted biopsy, or pros-tatectomy and clinical follow-up data as the reference standard. We limited our search to studies published on or before April 14, 2018. The search strategy was as follows: diagnosis AND (multiparametric MRI OR multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging OR multiparametric MRI prostate OR multiparametric MRI prostate cancer) AND (bpMRI OR ((DWI OR diffusion-weighted imaging OR diffusion weighted MRI) AND (T2-weighted MRI OR T2WI)) OR bpMRI OR biparametric MRI OR biparametric prostate OR biparametric prostate MRI) AND prostate cancer. Medical subject heading terms and variations of each term were used. Language was not confined.

The reference lists of the relevant articles were manually screened to identify other potentially eligible articles. Titles and abstracts were initially screened independently; eligible abstracts were selected by reading the full text and finally were included or excluded. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved by consensus.

Types of studies—Retrospective and prospective studies comparing bpMRI with mpMRI in diagnosing PCa were considered. Studies in which only bpMRI outcomes were investigated were excluded, because these studies disregard essential information about comparison. Studies with insufficient data to create 2 × 2 tables to assess diagnostic accuracy were excluded.

Patients—The following patients were considered as participants: patients with clinical suspicion of PCa based on elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value or an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) finding and patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy with continually increasing PSA values or an abnormal finding at DRE performed an interval before MRI examination. For this review, we focused on primary PCa diagnosis. Patients who already had a diagnosis of low-grade PCa and had been on active surveillance were not eligible, and patients with recurrent PCa were also excluded, as this generated multiple biases. The main indicator of observation in this study was detection of PCa regardless of Gleason score and location of the lesion.

Quality Assessment and Data Extraction

Each included study was assessed by two observers (with 8 and 5 years' experience of systematic reviews) using the revised instrument for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). The observers used tailored QUADAS-2 quality checklists [14, 15]. Each item was scored as Yes or No or as Unclear when there was insufficient information to make a precise judgment. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. We used RevMan software (version 5.3, The Cochrane Collaboration) [16] to display the QUADAS-2 results graphically.

The following data were extracted from each study: the first author's name, year of publication, country where study was performed, sample size, description of study population (age), study design (prospective, retrospective, or unknown), PSA value, location of lesions, characteristics of lesions analyzed, magnetic field strength, b values for DWI techniques, descriptions of interpretations of the diagnostic tests, and description of the reference standard. True-positive, false-positive, false-negative, true-negative, sensitivity, and specificity results for the detection of lesions were extracted, and 2 × 2 contingency tables were constructed.

Statistical Analysis

Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and the Higgins I2 heterogeneity index [17], where p ≤ 0.5 indicated significant heterogeneity. When I2 < 50%, a fixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis. When I2 > 50%, the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird was applied [18]. Source of heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression analysis, which was performed using Meta-DiSc software (version 1.4, Ramón y Cajal Hospital). If there was obvious heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis was performed. Our primary analysis included all the studies, but the sensitivity analysis was performed after removal of the studies indicating heterogeneity.

The statistical computations of sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (LR), and negative LR with 95% CIs were performed using Stata software (version 14, StataCorp). Summary ROC (SROC) curves and area under the SROC curve (AUC) were constructed to assess the diagnostic accuracy capabilities.

Results
Previous sectionNext section
Literature Search Results

The literature search was performed of studies published on or before April 14, 2018. Six articles were retrieved from Cochrane Library databases; 206 articles from PubMed; and 185 articles from Web of Science. A total of 397 articles were identified from initial screening. A total of 50 articles were also identified from the relevant references. Of the 447 published studies, 185 studies were repetitive and thus were excluded. After a review of the titles and abstracts, 59 studies were found to be potentially relevant and their full texts were read. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram of the search for eligible studies. Finally, 10 published studies were included in the meta-analysis, consisting of a total of 1705 patients and 3419 lesions.

figure
View larger version (74K)

Fig. 1 —Flowchart shows process for selecting studies for meta-analysis.

Study Characteristics

The patient and study characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis are summarized in Table 1. The 10 studies came from seven countries: Seven studies were from Europe, and three studies were from Japan and the United States. The age of the included patients ranged from 41 to 86 years, with a median or mean age ranging from 62 to 69 years. The median or mean PSA value ranged from 6.8 to 20.51 ng/mL. Eight of 10 studies were conducted retrospectively. The lesions in three studies were located in PZ or transition zone (TZ), the lesions in one study were located in the TZ, and the lesions in one study were located at the TZ and anterior fibrous stroma; in the remaining five studies specific localization of the lesions was not reported.

TABLE 1: Study and Patient Characteristics of Studies Included in Meta-Analysis

The technical characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis are summarized in Table 2. Nine of 10 studies used 3-T MRI. One study used endorectal coil. All studies performed high-b-value acquisition (b value ≥ 800 s/mm2). Two studies [19, 20] used histopathology results from pure pros-tatectomy as the reference standard. Eight studies used TRUS-guided biopsy, MRI-targeted biopsy, or prostatectomy histopathology results and clinical data as the reference standard. The cutoff values for PCa diagnosis were reported in six studies; the cutoff values were PI-RADSv2 ≥ 4 in one study [21], PI-RADSv2 ≥ 3 in one study [22], PI-RADS ≥ 3 in one study [23], score ≥ 3 in two studies [24, 25], and score of ≥ 4 on 5-point scale in one study [26].

TABLE 2: Technical Characteristics of Studies Included in Meta-Analysis
Quality Assessment

Results of QUADAS-2 assessment are presented in Figures 2 and 3. The quality of the studies varied from moderate to high. The main causes of potential bias were attributed to patient selection, index test, and flow and timing. The Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test indicated no publication bias, as shown in Figure 4.

figure
View larger version (19K)

Fig. 2 —Chart shows summary of results of methodologic quality analysis of 10 studies in meta-analysis according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.

figure
View larger version (167K)

Fig. 3 —Chart shows results of methodologic quality analysis for each study in meta-analysis according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.

figure
View larger version (28K)

Fig. 4 —Plot shows results of Deeks funnel plot asymmetry test of publication bias (p = 0.80). Numbers in circles are numbers assigned to studies. ESS = effective sample size.

Pooled Analysis of Individual Studies

Data were derived from the included studies, as shown in Table 3. The data of the Scialpi et al. [20] study could not be extracted. In that study [20], the reported sensitivity of detecting PCa lesions was the same and equal for bpMRI and mpMRI: 100% in the PZ, 97.6% in the entire prostate, and 94.7% in the TZ.

TABLE 3: Sensitivity, Specificity, True-Positive (TP), False-Positive (FP), False-Negative (FN), and True-Negative (TN) Results for Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and Biparametric MRI (bpMRI) Derived From the Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis

The overall performance of mpMRI in diagnosing PCa was as follows: sensitivity, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69–0.87); specificity, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70–0.96); positive LR, 6.9 (95% CI, 2.5–18.8); negative LR, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16–0.35); and DOR, 29 (95% CI, 10–83) (Fig. 5 and Table 4). The overall performance of bpMRI in diagnosing PCa was as follows: sensitivity, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69–0.87); specificity, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.73–0.95); positive LR, 6.4 (95% CI, 2.9–14.5); negative LR, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16–0.35); and DOR, 27 (95% CI, 11–67) (Fig. 6 and Table 4). Figure 7 shows the SROC plot with 95% CI area. The AUCs for mpMRI and bpMRI were 0.88 and 0.89, respectively, and the relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) was 1 (95% CI, 0.31–3.24) (p = 0.9944).

figure
View larger version (53K)

Fig. 5 —Forest plots show sensitivity and specificity of multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer in each study included in meta-analysis. Horizontal bars indicate 95% CIs of individual studies. Diamond represents combined diagnostic effect, and diamond's breadth shows 95% CIs of pooled results. Vertical line indicates point estimates of pooled results.

TABLE 4: Summary of Performance of Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and Biparametric MRI (bpMRI) for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer
figure
View larger version (53K)

Fig. 6 —Forest plots show sensitivity and specificity of biparametric MRI for diagnosis of prostate cancer in each study included in meta-analysis. Horizontal bars indicate 95% CIs of individual studies; Diamond represents combined diagnostic effect, and diamond's breadth shows 95% CIs of pooled results. Vertical line indicates point estimates of pooled results.

figure
View larger version (47K)

Fig. 7 —Summary ROC plot comparing multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) for diagnosis of prostate cancer.

The posttest results are shown in Figure 8: The positive posttest probability increased from 20% to 64%, whereas the negative posttest probability decreased from 20% to 62%, indicating an increased diagnosis accuracy of bpMRI. Sensitivity increases and specificity decreases, indicating a threshold effect, were reported by Thestrup et al. [27]. Meanwhile, a meta-regression analysis showed that study design was a factor of heterogeneity (RDOR = 10.18 [95% CI, 2.55–40.67], p = 0.0028). After removal of the Thestrup et al. study and the two prospective studies [23, 28], sensitivity analysis showed no significant changes, and the AUCs for mpMRI and bpMRI were both 0.89 (Table 3) (RDOR = 1.05 [95% CI, 0.30–3.62], p = 0.9349).

figure
View larger version (99K)

Fig. 8 —Graphic shows posttest probability of biparametric MRI diagnosing prostate cancer.

Discussion
Previous sectionNext section

The findings of this meta-analysis showed that bpMRI had a similar diagnosis performance compared with mpMRI with almost the same diagnosis sensitivity, specificity, and DOR. These results indicate that the role of DCE-MRI in mpMRI was minimal in diagnosing PCa and that an abbreviated bpMRI protocol consisting of T2-weighted imaging and DWI has the potential to replace standard mpMRI.

The sensitivity and specificity for mpMRI varied in the individual studies, with sensitivities ranging from 0.50 to 0.91 and specificity ranging from 0.80 to 1.00 except in the study by Thestrup et al. [27]. In the latter study, sensitivity was more than 90% while the specificity was 10.3%, which indicates an obvious threshold effect. The sensitivity of bpMRI ranged from 0.50 to 0.92, and specificity varied from 0.80 to 0.98, showing a similar diagnosis performance with mpMRI. In addition, SROC curve analysis showed that AUCs for mpMRI and bpMRI were very close, 0.88 and 0.89, respectively, and the result of sensitivity analysis was consistent, with an AUC of 0.89 for both. Moreover, posttest analysis showed that the positive LR did not change significantly and the negative LR decreased, indicating a good diagnostic performance.

In clinical practice, the majority of studies included in our meta-analysis used two or more radiologists to interpret the MR images, which was inevitable to avoid interpretation bias, but interobserver agreement was generally excellent or good in these studies; thus, the mean sensitivity and specificity were adopted in statistical analysis. PI-RADS or PI-RADSv2 or confidence scale or 5-point scale was adopted to assign the possibilities of PCa in these studies. Although the threshold for PCa diagnosis was not the same, the majority of the included studies used a threshold of PI-RADS ≥ 3. However, three studies [19, 20, 28] did not report the grading system used for PCa diagnosis, and one study reported that no grading was used [27]. In the latter study [27], images were categorized only according to harboring significant PCa or not, which may lead to interpretation bias.

We found a marked heterogeneous effect among different studies, with I2 far greater than 50%, even up to more than 90%. The fact that patient selection was not clearly reported as consecutive or random and that there may have been inappropriate exclusions may have introduced selection bias. A threshold not reported or prespecified may have led to interpretation bias. The study by Thestrup et al. [27] showed an obvious threshold effect, which may also have introduced interpretation bias. The fact that the same reference standard was not used for all studies may have led to flow and timing bias. Furthermore, we used meta-regression analysis to explore the sources of heterogeneity, and our results showed that research design was a source of heterogeneity. In this case, we performed sensitivity analysis, according to the study design in retrospective or prospective manner, and the results showed that sensitivity and specificity were not affected, which indicates that the results are robust.

Most of the included studies used 3-T MRI scans, but a study conducted in 2011 using 1.5-T MRI showed no difference in performance [24]. At present, the use of 3-T MRI of the prostate is widespread because of its higher image quality; however, low-field-strength MRI, which conforms to European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) guidelines, is also acceptable.

According to ESUR guidelines [29], a PI-RADS score of 3 means that findings are suspicious for clinically significant cancers and a PI-RADS score of 4 means that clinically significant cancer is likely to exist. Two included studies used a cutoff value for PCa diagnosis of PI-RADS 3, whereas two studies [24, 25] used the cutoff value of a confidential score of 3 [22, 23]; however, meta-regression analysis did not recognize that the cutoff value systems for the studies in the meta-analysis were a source of heterogeneity. Although PI-RADSv2 has been shown to detect PCa with a higher sensitivity than PI-RADS version 1 (PI-RADSv1) with no significant difference in specificity [30], we did not find any difference between PI-RADSv2 and the other scoring systems, such as the confidence scale that also uses five categories of scoring to indicate the likelihood of PCa. This may be due to the intrinsic similarity of the prostate scoring system [8] and the good consistency between the observers. A previous study has shown a need to further determine whether a lesion with PI-RADS 3 needs to be biopsied [31]; however, according to the results of this study—that is, the high sensitivity and high specificity of the meta-analysis, biopsy of PI-RADS 3 lesions should be recommended to avoid missing a PCa diagnosis. These results are consistent with the results reported by Schoots [32].

Approximately 70–75% of PCa lesions occur in the PZ [33]. Of the 10 studies included in this meta-analysis, five studies did not report specific localization of the lesions, three studies reported the lesions were located at the PZ or TZ, one study reported lesions in the TZ, and one study reported lesions in the TZ and anterior fibrous stroma. Therefore, PZ PCa and TZ PCa were not separated because of the limited studies in this primary meta-analysis. Future studies could further investigate the differences between PZ PCa and TZ PCa. The difference between PI-RADSv2 and PI-RADSv1 is that the imaging sequences are weighted according to the lesion location in the PZ or TZ to improve the performance of diagnosis. In PI-RADSv2, the role of DCE-MRI is secondary to T2-weighted imaging and DWI and DCE-MRI is expressed as positive or negative only [34]. DWI is defined as being dominant for evaluation of PZ lesions, and T2-weighted imaging is dominant for evaluation of TZ lesions. Further sequences will contribute to only the overall PI-RADS score if an intermediate finding—more precisely, a lesion of PI-RADS score 3—in the dominant sequence is found. In this case, a second sequence (DCE-MRI of PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesion in the PZ and DWI of PI-RADS 5 lesion in the TZ) can upgrade the lesion score to an overall PI-RADS 4. Therefore, DCE-MRI does not contribute to the TZ PI-RADS score, and T2-weighted imaging does not have relevance in scoring PZ lesions [35]. A recent study has confirmed the superiority of DWI and T2-weighted imaging compared with DCE-MRI and T2-weighted imaging [12]. In view of the time and cost of DCE-MRI, more studies have suggested that DCE-MRI should be omitted [36]. Moreover, performance of DWI has been found to be similar to that of DCE-MRI for PCa diagnosis [11]; bpMRI becomes an attractive proposition as a quick screening examination in biopsy-naive patients [36]. Our results showed that bpMRI and mpMRI were not statistically different both in sensitivity and specificity and in DOR values; thus, these results suggest that bpMRI has the potential to replace the tedious and time-consuming mpMRI as a simple solution.

The strengths of this systematic review include adequate studies in the literature available for meta-analysis, meta-regression analysis to find possible causes of heterogeneity, and credible and robust sensitivity analysis. However, it also has limitations. The sources of heterogeneity between studies were hard to identify even after excluding heterogeneity of study design. Four studies did not report a PCa diagnosis cutoff value, which may have caused bias. PZ PCa and TZ PCa were not divided into subgroups because of the limited number of studies in this initial metaanalysis. Future studies may investigate the differences between PZ PCa and TZ PCa.

In conclusion, abbreviated bpMRI was verified to be similar in diagnostic efficacy to mpMRI; therefore, abbreviated bpMRI may be of potential value in clinical practice.

Supported in part by grants 81171307 and 81671656 from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

References
Previous sectionNext section
1. Assinder SJ, Bhoopalan V. A promising future for prostate cancer diagnostics. Diagnostics (Basel) 2017; 7:1 [Google Scholar]
2. Bray F, Jemal A, Grey N, Ferlay J, Forman D. Global cancer transitions according to the Human Development Index (2008–2030): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13:790–801 [Google Scholar]
3. Futterer JJ. Multiparametric MRI in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Korean J Radiol 2017; 18:597–606 [Google Scholar]
4. de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR 2014; 202:343–351 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
5. Horn GL Jr, Hahn PF, Tabatabaei S, Harisinghani M. A practical primer on PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial essay. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41:899–906 [Google Scholar]
6. Fusco R, Sansone M, Petrillo M, et al. Multipara-metric MRI for prostate cancer detection: Preliminary results on quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging and spectroscopy imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 34:839–845 [Google Scholar]
7. Dola EF, Nakhla OL, Genidi EA. Assessing the validity of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) scoring system in diagnosis of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol Open 2017; 4:19–26 [Google Scholar]
8. Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA, et al. Updated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 2016; 26:1606–1612 [Google Scholar]
9. Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Validation of the dominant sequence paradigm and role of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in PI-RADS version 2. Radiology 2017; 285:859–869 [Google Scholar]
10. Scialpi M, Rondoni V, Aisa MC, et al. Is contrast enhancement needed for diagnostic prostate MRI? Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6:499–509 [Google Scholar]
11. Haghighi M, Shah S, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Prostate cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging versus dynamic-contrast enhanced imaging for tumor localization—a meta-analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2013; 37:980–988 [Google Scholar]
12. Tan CH, Hobbs BP, Wei W, Kundra V. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. AJR 2015; 204:[web] W439–W448 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
13. Tan CH, Wei W, Johnson V, Kundra V. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. AJR 2012; 199:822–829 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
14. Wade R, Corbett M, Eastwood A. Quality assessment of comparative diagnostic accuracy studies: our experience using a modified version of the QUADAS-2 tool. Res Synth Methods 2013; 4:280–286 [Google Scholar]
15. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155:529–536 [Google Scholar]
16. Cochrane Community website. RevMan, version 5. community.cochrane.org/help/tools-and-software/revman-5. Accessed July 2018 [Google Scholar]
17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327:557–560 [Google Scholar]
18. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58:982–990 [Google Scholar]
19. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Campbell N, Gaing B, Deng FM, Taneja SS. Transition zone prostate cancer: revisiting the role of multiparametric MRI at 3 T. AJR 2015; 204:[web]W266–W272 [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
20. Scialpi M, Prosperi E, D'Andrea A, et al. Bipara-metric versus multiparametric MRI with non-endorectal coil at 3T in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 2017; 37:1263–1271 [Google Scholar]
21. 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 prostate cancer in patients with elevated PSA. Clin Radiol 2017; 72:23–32 [Google Scholar]
22. Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Kramer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology 2017; 285:493–505 [Google Scholar]
23. Radtke JP, Boxler S, Kuru TH, et al. Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015; 18:288–296 [Google Scholar]
24. Iwazawa J, Mitani T, Sassa S, Ohue S. Prostate cancer detection with MRI: is dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging necessary in addition to diffusion-weighted imaging? Diagn Interv Radiol 2011; 17:243–248 [Google Scholar]
25. Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, Yoshida K, S uganuma N, Sugimura K. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31:625–631 [Google Scholar]
26. Barth BK, De Visschere PJL, Cornelius A, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: short dual-pulse sequence versus standard multi-parametric MR imaging—a multireader study. Radiology 2017; 284:725–736 [Google Scholar]
27. Thestrup KC, Logager V, Baslev I, Moller JM, Hansen RH, Thomsen HS. Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Acta Radiol Open 2016; 5:2058460116663046 [Google Scholar]
28. Stanzione A, Imbriaco M, Cocozza S, et al. Biparametric 3T magnetic resonance imaging for prostatic cancer detection in a biopsy-naive patient population: a further improvement of PI-RADS v2? Eur J Radiol 2016; 85:2269–2274 [Google Scholar]
29. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69:16–40 [Google Scholar]
30. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017; 72:177–188 [Google Scholar]
31. Zhang L, Tang M, Chen SP, Lei XY, Zhang XL, Huan Y. A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2017; 27:5204–5214 [Google Scholar]
32. Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7:70–82 [Google Scholar]
33. Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, et al. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85:1125–1131 [Google Scholar]
34. Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL. PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol 2015; 70:1165–1176 [Google Scholar]
35. 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; 35:687–693 [Google Scholar]
36. Barrett T. Contrasting opinions: biparametric versus multiparametric prostate MRI. Diagn Interv Radiol 2016; 22:299 [Google Scholar]
Address correspondence to L. Wang ().

Recommended Articles

Abbreviated Biparametric Versus Standard Multiparametric MRI for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Full Access, , , , ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2018;211:W226-W241. 10.2214/AJR.18.19880
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (946 KB) | PDF Plus (1034 KB) 
Full Access, , , , , ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:351-356. 10.2214/AJR.18.20147
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1084 KB) | PDF Plus (775 KB) 
Full Access, , , , ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:323-331. 10.2214/AJR.18.20017
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1024 KB) | PDF Plus (923 KB) 
Full Access, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:382-385. 10.2214/AJR.18.20060
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (571 KB) | PDF Plus (586 KB) 
Full Access, , , , , , , , , , ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2019;212:W25-W31. 10.2214/AJR.18.19876
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (679 KB) | PDF Plus (744 KB) | Supplemental Material 
Full Access, , , , ,
American Journal of Roentgenology. 2018;211:369-378. 10.2214/AJR.17.18946
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (916 KB) | PDF Plus (999 KB)