前列腺影像报告和数据系统结合PSA密度对临床显著性前列腺癌诊断价值的Meta分析

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (0)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1406 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective: To systematically review the diagnostic value of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS ) plus PSA density (PSAD) in clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCA) by meta-analysis so as to provide evidence-based information for clinical. Methods: We electronically searched databases from inception to Sep 30, 2018, including PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, and VIP to collect Chinese and English diagnostic articles on combined of PI-RADS and PSAD for CSPCA published in China and abroad. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. The included articles were assessed in term of methodological quality by QUADAS tool and analyzed with meta software in Stata10.0, then the relevant parameters were extracted. Results: A total of 6 articles met the inclusion criteria, 1 228 patients were included. The fixed effect model was used for lack of heterogeneity confirmed by Q and I2 test. The pooled sensitivity of PI-RADS for CSPCA was 81.1% [95%CI: 0.639-0.912], and the specialty, DOR, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR) and Lambda value were 82.1% [95%CI: 0.694-0.903], 19.711 [95%CI: 6.953-55.927], 4.533 [95%CI: 2.552-8.054], 0.229 [95%CI: 0.113-0.468] and 3.011 [95%CI: 1.967-4.054] respectively. The specialty, DOR, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR) and Lambda value were 87.9% [95%CI: 0.826-0.917], 81.8% [95%CI: 0.590-0.872], 22.688 [95%CI: 7.403-69.538], 3.632 [95%CI: 1.941-6.800], 0.160 [95%CI: 0.095-0.270] and 3.778 [95%CI: 2.537-5.020] for PI-RADS plus PSAD. The Lambda and sensitivity of PI-RADS plus PSAD were significantly higher than those of PI-RADS (P<0.05). Conclusion: PI-RADS plus PSAD could effectively improve the diagnosis efficiency for CSPCA.

Key words： PSA density prostate cancer PI-RADS Meta-analysis

Received: 26 December 2018

	Service
	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	FANG Quan

URL:

https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/EN/Y2019/V49/I9/681

[1] DI CAMPLI E, DELLI P A, SECCIA B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: Comparison between readers with different experience[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2018, 101: 17-23.
[2] KUHL C K, BRUHN R, KRAMER N, et al. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen[J]. Radiology, 2017, 285(2): 493-505.
[3] MERTAN F V, GREER M D, SHIH J H, et al. Prospective evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for prostate cancer detection[J]. J Urol, 2016, 196(3): 690-696.
[4] WANG X, WANG J Y, LI C M, et al. Evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system for magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/ml[J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2016, 129(12): 1432-1438.
[5] DE VISSCHERE P J, NAESENS L, LIBBRECHT L, et al.
What kind of prostate cancers do we miss on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging?[J]. Eur Radiol, 2016, 26(4): 1098-1107.
[6] LEE S H, KOO K C, LEE D H, et al. Nonvisible tumors on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging does not predict low-risk prostate cancer[J]. Prostate Int, 2015, 3(4): 127-131.
[7] ZHANG Y, ZENG N, ZHU Y C, et al. Development and internal validation of PI-RADs v2-based model for clinically significant prostate cancer[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2018, 16(1): 102.
[8] DISTLER F A, RADTKE J P, BONEKAMP D, et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction[J]. J Urol, 2017, 198(3): 575-582.
[9] CUOCOLO R, STANZIONE A, RUSCONI G, et al. PSA-density does not improve bi-parametric prostate MR detection of prostate cancer in a biopsy naive patient population [J]. Eur J Radiol, 2018, 104: 64-70.
[10] JORDAN E J, FISKE C, ZAGORIA R J, et al. Evaluating the performance of PI-RADS v2 in the non-academic setting [J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2017, 42(11): 2725-2731.
[11] WHITING P, RUTJES A W, REITSMA J B, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic re-views[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2003, 3: 25.
[12] LIU C, LIU S L, WANG Z X, et al. Using the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RIDS v2) to detect prostate cancer can prevent unnecessary biopsies and invasive treatment[J]. Asian J Androl, 2018, 20(5): 459-464.
[13] KOTB A F, SPANER S, CRUMP T, et al. The role of mpMRI and PSA density in patients with an initial negative prostatic biopsy[J]. World J Urol, 2018, 36(12): 2021-2025.
[14] NIU X K, HE W F, ZHANG Y, et al. Developing a new PI-RADS v2-based nomogram for forecasting high-grade prostate cancer[J]. Clin Radiol, 2017, 72(6): 458-464.
[15] BORREN A, MOMAN M R, GROENENDAAL G, et al. Why prostate tumour delineation based on apparent diffusion coefficient is challenging: an exploration of the tissue microanatomy[J]. Acta Oncol, 2013, 52(8): 1629-1636.
[16] ZHENG Y, HUANG Y, CHENG G, et al. Developing a new score system for patients with PSA ranging from 4 to 20 ng/mL to improve the accuracy of PCa detection[J]. Springerplus, 2016, 5(1): 1484.