A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric prostate MRI for prostate cancer in men at risk

Abstract

Introduction: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), the use of three multiple imaging sequences, typically T2-weighted, diffusion weighted (DWI) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) images, has a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting significant cancer. Current guidance now recommends its use prior to biopsy. However, the impact of DCE is currently under debate regarding test accuracy. Biparametric MRI (bpMRI), using only T2 and DWI has been proposed as a viable alternative. We conducted a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis to further examine the diagnostic performance of bpMRI in the diagnosis of any and clinically significant prostate cancer.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature from 01/01/2017 to 06/07/2019 was performed by two independent reviewers using predefined search criteria. The index test was biparametric MRI and the reference standard whole-mount prostatectomy or prostate biopsy. Quality of included studies was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. Statistical analysis included pooled diagnostic performance (sensitivity; specificity; AUC), meta-regression of possible covariates and head-to-head comparisons of bpMRI and mpMRI where both were performed in the same study.

Results: Forty-four articles were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity for any cancer detection was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.88), specificity 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.81) for bpMRI. The summary ROC curve yielded a high AUC value (AUC = 0.86). The pooled sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93), specificity 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.84) and the AUC value was 0.87. Meta-regression analysis revealed no difference in the pooled diagnostic estimates between bpMRI and mpMRI.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis on contemporary studies shows that bpMRI offers comparable test accuracies to mpMRI in detecting prostate cancer. These data are broadly supportive of the bpMRI approach but heterogeneity does not allow definitive recommendations to be made. There is a need for prospective multicentre studies of bpMRI in biopsy naïve men.