Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The role of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score in Gleason 3 + 3 active surveillance candidates enrollment: a diagnostic meta-analysis

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 22, pages 235–243 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

The contemporary active surveillance (AS) criteria may result in an unsatisfactory misclassification rate, which may delay curative treatment for prostate cancer patients. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), not included in any AS criteria, provides useful information for prostate cancer diagnosis. Our goal is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (PI-RADS) score, a standardized MRI reporting system, in AS candidates enrollment.

Methods

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase for pertinent studies through June 2018. The standard methods recommended for meta-analyses of diagnostic evaluation were employed. We draw the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Meta-regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of confounding factors.

Results

From the resulting 168 studies, 5 provided the diagnostic data on PI-RADS score and pathological results; 834 patients were included. All AS candidates in these studies were defined by Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criterion. The pooled estimates of PI-RADS 4 or 5 on adverse pathological features at radical prostatectomy (RP) among AS candidates were: sensitivity, 0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71–0.82); specificity, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.55–0.71); positive predictive value, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.64–0.79); negative predictive value, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.63–0.73); and diagnostic odds ratio, 6 (95% CI, 4–8). The SROC curve was positioned toward the desired upper left corner of the curve, the area under the curve was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73–0.80). The P-value for heterogeneity was <0.01. The pathological outcomes and endorectal coils contributed to the heterogeneity of sensitivity. The evidences supporting the advantage of PI-RADS v2 over v1 were not sufficient yet.

Conclusion

AS candidates with PI-RADS 4 or 5 may be unsuitable for AS even though they fulfill current AS criteria. Those with PI-RADS 3 or less indicated relative safety for AS enrollment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:126–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Huang GJ, Sadetsky N, Penson DF. Health related quality of life for men treated for localized prostate cancer with long-term followup. J Urol. 2010;183:2206–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dall'Era MA, Albertsen PC, Bangma C, Carroll PR, Carter HB, Cooperberg MR, et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2012;62:976–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Iremashvili V, Pelaez L, Manoharan M, Jorda M, Rosenberg DL, Soloway MS. Pathologic prostate cancer characteristics in patients eligible for active surveillance: a head-to-head comparison of contemporary protocols. Eur Urol. 2012;62:462–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, Chung BH, Hong SJ, Choi YD, et al. Yonsei criteria: a new protocol for active surveillance in the era of robotic and local ablative surgeries. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2013;11:501–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim TH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, et al. Pathological upgrading and upstaging of patients eligible for active surveillance according to currently used protocols. Int J Urol. 2014;21:377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee SE, Kim DS, Lee WK, Park HZ, Lee CJ, Doo SH, et al. Application of the Epstein criteria for prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer in Korean men. BJU Int. 2010;105:1526–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yamada Y, Sakamoto S, Sazuka T, Goto Y, Kawamura K, Imamoto T, et al. Validation of active surveillance criteria for pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in Asian men. Int J Urol. 2016;23:49–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67:627–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. van den Bergh RC, Ahmed HU, Bangma CH, Cooperberg MR, Villers A, Parker CC. Novel tools to improve patient selection and monitoring on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1023–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, Yu C, Zakian KL, Udo K, et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012;109:1315–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Somford DM, Hambrock T, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Futterer JJ, van Oort IM, van Basten JP, et al. Initial experience with identifying high-grade prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in patients with a Gleason score</=3+3=6 upon schematic TRUS-guided biopsy: a radical prostatectomy correlated series. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:153–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Borofsky MS, Rosenkrantz AB, Abraham N, Jain R, Taneja SS. Does suspicion of prostate cancer on integrated T2 and diffusion-weighted MRI predict more adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy? Urology. 2013;81:1279–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, et al. Tumor lesion diameter on diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging could help predict insignificant prostate cancer in patients eligible for active surveillance: preliminary analysis. J Urol. 2013;190:1213–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, Rha KH, Choi YD, Hong SJ, et al. Low-risk prostate cancer patients without visible tumor (T1c) on multiparametric MRI could qualify for active surveillance candidate even if they did not meet inclusion criteria of active surveillance protocol. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;43:553–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Park BH, Jeon HG, Choo SH, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, et al. Role of multiparametric 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int. 2014;113:864–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenkrantz AB, Prabhu V, Sigmund EE, Babb JS, Deng FM, Taneja SS. Utility of diffusional kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:840–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, Ho J, Hoang A, Rastinehad AR, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology. 2013;268:144–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Clifford T, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. Jama. 2018;319:388–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1129–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–316.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002;21:1525–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20:2865–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:882–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Guo R, Cai L, Fan Y, Jin J, Zhou L, Zhang K. Magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates with low-risk prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18:221–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dwamena BA. Evidence-based radiology: step 3--diagnostic systematic review and meta-analysis (critical appraisal). Semin Roentgenol. 2009;44:170–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. de Cobelli O, Terracciano D, Tagliabue E, Raimondi S, Bottero D, Cioffi A, et al. Predicting pathological features at radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active Surveillance by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. PloS ONE. 2015;10:e0139696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Park JJ, Park BK. Role of PI-RADSv2 with multiparametric MRI in determining who needs active surveillance or definitive treatment according to PRIAS. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;45:1753–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yim JH, Kim CK. Clinically insignificant prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active surveillance criteria: Utility of PI-RADS v2. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47:1072–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Almeida GL, Petralia G, Ferro M, Ribas CA, Detti S, Jereczek-Fossa BA, et al. Role of multi-parametric magnetic resonance image and PIRADS score in patients with prostate cancer eligible for Active surveillance according PRIAS criteria. Urol Int. 2016;96:459–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Porpiglia F, Cantiello F, De Luca S, De Pascale A, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and active surveillance: how to better select insignificant prostate cancer? Int J Urol. 2016;23:752–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Porpiglia F, Cantiello F, De Luca S, Manfredi M, Veltri A, Russo F, et al. In-parallel comparative evaluation between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate cancer antigen 3 and the prostate health index in predicting pathologically confirmed significant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int. 2016;118:527–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:272–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:203–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sathianathen NJ, Murphy DG, van den Bergh RC, Lawrentschuk N. Gleason pattern 4: active surveillance no more. BJU Int. 2016;117:856–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science. 1988;240:1285–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Becker AS, Cornelius A, Reiner CS, Stocker D, Ulbrich EJ, Barth BK, et al. Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and version 1 regarding interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2017;94:58–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC, Shah V, Aras O, Bernardo M, et al. Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39:1443–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fan Y, Zhai L, Meng Y, Chen Y, Sun S, Wang H, et al. Contemporary Epstein Criteria with Biopsy-Naïve Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Prevent Incorrect Assignment to Active Surveillance in the PI-RADS Version 2.0 Era. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:3510–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pal R, Ahmed S, Hannah M, Jaulim A, Walton T, Elkjaer MC, et al. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging monitoring patients in active surveillance for prostate cancer: a prospective cohort study. BJU Int. 2018;52:8–13.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the following funds: (1) Youth clinical research project of Peking University First Hospital (Grant No.2017CR07); (2) National Key research and development program of China (Grant No. 2017YFC0908003); (3) Tibetan Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. XZ2017ZR-ZY019).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Lingyun Zhai, Yu Fan, Yisen Meng

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China

    Lingyun Zhai, Yu Fan, Yisen Meng, Wei Yu & Jie Jin

  2. Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China

    Lingyun Zhai, Yu Fan, Yisen Meng, Wei Yu & Jie Jin

  3. Department of Urology, Tibet Autonomous Region Peopleʼs Hospital, Lhasa, Tibet, China

    Yu Fan

  4. Department of Geriatrics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China

    Xueru Feng

  5. National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China

    Lingyun Zhai, Yu Fan, Yisen Meng, Wei Yu & Jie Jin

  6. Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogential diseases(male) molecular diagnosis and treatment center, Beijing, China

    Lingyun Zhai, Yu Fan, Yisen Meng, Wei Yu & Jie Jin

Authors
  1. Lingyun Zhai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yisen Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xueru Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wei Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jie Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wei Yu or Jie Jin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhai, L., Fan, Y., Meng, Y. et al. The role of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score in Gleason 3 + 3 active surveillance candidates enrollment: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 22, 235–243 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0111-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0111-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links