Evolution of prostate cancer diagnosis: retrospective analysis of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsies protocol in routine practice and patients management

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

CONTEXT

The variability of the positive predictive value (PPV) represents a significant factor affecting the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

OBJECTIVE

To analyze published studies reporting mpMRI PPV and the reasons behind the variability of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates on targeted biopsies (TBx) according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 categories.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A search of PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases, from January 2015 to June 2020, was conducted. The primary and secondary outcomes were to evaluate the PPV of PI-RADS version 2 in detecting csPCa and any prostate cancer (PCa), respectively. Individual authors' definitions for csPCa and PI-RADS thresholds for positive mpMRI were accepted. Detection rates, used as a surrogate of PPV, were pooled using random-effect models. Preplanned subgroup analyses tested PPV after stratification for PI-RADS scores, previous biopsy status, TBx technique, and number of sampled cores. PPV variation over cancer prevalence was evaluated.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Fifty-six studies, with a total of 16 537 participants, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The PPV of suspicious mpMRI for csPCa was 40% (95% confidence interval 36-43%), with large heterogeneity between studies (I² 94%, p < 0.01). PPV increased according to PCa prevalence. In subgroup analyses, PPVs for csPCa were 13%, 40%, and 69% for, respectively, PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 (p < 0.001). TBx missed 6%, 6%, and 5% of csPCa in PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions, respectively. In biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy groups, PPVs for csPCa were 42% and 32%, respectively (p = 0.005). Study design, TBx technique, and number of sampled cores did not affect PPV.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis underlines that the PPV of mpMRI is strongly dependent on the disease prevalence, and that the main factors affecting PPV are PI-RADS version 2 scores and prior biopsy status. A substantially low PPV for PI-RADS 3 lesions was reported, while it was still suboptimal in PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions. Lastly, even if the added value of a systematic biopsy for csPCa is relatively low, this rate can improve patient risk assessment and staging.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Targeted biopsy of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions should be considered carefully in light of additional individual risk assessment corroborating the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. On the contrary, the positive predictive value of highly suspicious lesions is not high enough to omit systematic prostate sampling.