Magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates with low-risk prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis

被引:47
|
作者
Guo, R.
Cai, L.
Fan, Y.
Jin, J.
Zhou, L.
Zhang, K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ, Hosp 1, Dept Urol, Beijing 100034, Peoples R China
关键词
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; ENDORECTAL MR; TEST ACCURACY; BIOPSY; MEN; INTERVENTION; PERFORMANCE; TUMOR; STAGE; SIZE;
D O I
10.1038/pcan.2015.20
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly important attempt to avoid overtreatment of patients who harbor clinically insignificant disease while offering curative treatment to those in whom disease is reclassified as higher risk after an observation period and repeat biopsy. We aim to evaluate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting upgrading on confirmatory biopsy in men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) on AS. METHODS: We searched the PubMed for pertinent studies up to November 2014. We used standard methods recommended for meta-analyses of diagnostic test evaluations. The analysis was based on a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Meta-regression analysis was used to assess the effects of some confounding factors on the results of the meta-analysis. The potential presence of publication bias was tested using the Deeks' funnel plots. RESULTS: Seven studies provided the diagnostic data on MRI and AS of PCa, comprising 1028 patients. The pooled estimates of MRI on disease reclassification among AS candidates were as follows: sensitivity, 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.44-0.86); specificity, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.53-0.91); positive likelihood ratio, 3.1 (95% CI, 1.6-6.0); negative likelihood ratio, 0.40 (95% CI, 0.23-0.70); and diagnostic odds ratio, 8 (95% CI, 4-16). The P-value for heterogeneity was < 0.001. We found that the SROC curve is positioned toward the desirable upper left corner of the curve, and the area under the curve was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83). For a pretest probability of 0.20, the corresponding positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.44 and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.91. MRI may reveal an unrecognized significant lesion in 33.27% of patients, and biopsy of these areas reclassified 14.59% of cases as no longer fulfilling the criteria for AS. In addition, when no suspicious disease progression (66.34%) was identified on MRI, the chance of reclassification on repeat biopsy was extremely low at 6.13%. CONCLUSIONS: MRI, especially multiparametric (MP)-MRI, has a moderate diagnostic accuracy as a significant predictor of disease reclassification among AS candidates. The high NPV and specificity for the prediction of biopsy reclassification upon clinical follow-up suggest that negative prostate MRI findings may support a patient remaining under AS. Although the PPV and sensitivity for the prediction were relatively low, the presence of a suspicious lesion > 10 mm lesion may suggest an increased risk for disease progression.
引用
收藏
页码:221 / 228
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Dutasteride and active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer
    Fleshner, Neil E.
    LANCET, 2012, 379 (9826): : 1590 - 1590
  • [32] Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: an update
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    Klotz, Laurence
    NATURE REVIEWS UROLOGY, 2011, 8 (06) : 312 - 320
  • [33] Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: an update
    Nathan Lawrentschuk
    Laurence Klotz
    Nature Reviews Urology, 2011, 8 : 312 - 320
  • [34] Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Reply
    Lellig, Katja
    Buchner, Alexander
    Stief, Christian
    UROLOGE, 2015, 54 (06): : 870 - 870
  • [35] Active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer
    Sturch, Paul
    Kirby, Roger
    Challacombe, Ben
    TRENDS IN UROLOGY & MENS HEALTH, 2014, 5 (02) : 14 - 16
  • [36] Identification of men with low-risk biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer as candidates for active surveillance
    Lin, Daniel W.
    Crawford, E. David
    Keane, Thomas
    Evans, Brent
    Reid, Julia
    Rajamani, Saradha
    Brown, Krystal
    Gutin, Alexander
    Tward, Jonathan
    Scardino, Peter
    Brawer, Michael
    Stone, Steven
    Cuzick, Jack
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2018, 36 (06) : 310.e7 - 310.e13
  • [37] Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis
    de Rooij, Maarten
    Hamoen, Esther H. J.
    Witjes, J. Alfred
    Barentsz, Jelle O.
    Rovers, Maroeska M.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 70 (02) : 233 - 245
  • [38] Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Alone is Insufficient to Detect Grade Reclassification in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer
    Chu, Carissa E.
    Lonergan, Peter E.
    Washington, Samuel L.
    Cowan, Janet E.
    Shinohara, Katsuto
    Westphalen, Antonio C.
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Cooperberg, Matthew R.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2020, 78 (04) : 515 - 517
  • [39] Association Between Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Observation for Low-risk Prostate Cancer
    Leapman, Michael S.
    Wang, Rong
    Park, Henry S.
    Yu, James B.
    Weinreb, Jeffrey C.
    Gross, Cary P.
    Ma, Xiaomei
    UROLOGY, 2019, 124 : 98 - 105
  • [40] Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Fusion Biopsy in Patients with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Under Active Surveillance Undergoing Surveillance Biopsy
    Borkowetz, Angelika
    Renner, Theresa
    Platzek, Ivan
    Toma, Marieta
    Herout, Roman
    Baunacke, Martin
    Groeben, Christer
    Huber, Johannes
    Laniado, Michael
    Baretton, Gustavo B.
    Froehner, Michael
    Zastrow, Stefan
    Wirth, Manfred P.
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2018, 100 (02) : 155 - 163