Living systematic review and meta-analysis of the prostate MRI diagnostic test with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment for the detection of prostate cancer:study protocol

INTRODUCTION: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) standardises reporting of prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. We provide the protocol of a planned living systematic review and meta-analysis for (1) diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), (2) cancer detection rates of assessment categories and (3) inter-reader agreement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Retrospective and prospective studies reporting on at least one of the outcomes of interest are included. Each step that requires literature evaluation and data extraction is performed by two independent reviewers. Since PI-RADS is intended as a living document itself, a 12-month update cycle of the systematic review and meta-analysis is planned. This protocol is in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Protocols statement. The search strategies including databases, study eligibility criteria, index and reference test definitions, outcome definitions and data analysis processes are detailed. A full list of extracted data items is provided. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity (for PI-RADS ≥3 and PI-RADS ≥4 considered positive) are derived with bivariate binomial models. Summary estimates of cancer detection rates are calculated with random intercept logistic regression models for single proportions. Summary estimates of inter-reader agreement are derived with random effects models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No original patient data are collected, ethical review board approval, therefore, is not necessary. Results are published in peer-reviewed, open-access scientific journals. We make the collected data accessible as supplemental material to guarantee transparency of results. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022343931

Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level

Background!#!The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) standardizes reporting of multiparametric MRI of the prostate. Assigned assessment categories are a risk stratification algorithm, higher categories indicate a higher probability of clinically significant cancer compared to lower categories. PI-RADSv2.1 does not define these probabilities numerically. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the cancer detection rates (CDR) of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories on lesion level and patient level.!##!Methods!#!Two independent reviewers screen a systematic PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL search for relevant articles (primary outcome: clinically significant cancer, index test: prostate MRI reading according to PI-RADSv2.1, reference standard: histopathology). We perform meta-analyses of proportions with random-effects models for the CDR of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories for clinically significant cancer. We perform subgroup analysis according to lesion localization to test for differences of CDR between peripheral zone lesions and transition zone lesions.!##!Results!#!A total of 17 articles meet the inclusion criteria and data is independently extracted by two reviewers. Lesion level analysis includes 1946 lesions, patient level analysis includes 1268 patients. On lesion level analysis, CDR are 2% (95% confidence interval: 0-8%) for PI-RADS 1, 4% (1-9%) for PI-RADS 2, 20% (13-27%) for PI-RADS 3, 52% (43-61%) for PI-RADS 4, 89% (76-97%) for PI-RADS 5. On patient level analysis, CDR are 6% (0-20%) for PI-RADS 1, 9% (5-13%) for PI-RADS 2, 16% (7-27%) for PI-RADS 3, 59% (39-78%) for PI-RADS 4, 85% (73-94%) for PI-RADS 5. Higher categories are significantly associated with higher CDR (P < 0.001, univariate meta-regression), no systematic difference of CDR between peripheral zone lesions and transition zone lesions is identified in subgroup analysis.!##!Conclusions!#!Our estimates of CDR demonstrate that PI-RADSv2.1 stratifies lesions and patients as intended. Our results might serve as an initial evidence base to discuss management strategies linked to assessment categories

A Machine Learning Framework Reduces the Manual Workload for Systematic Reviews of the Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging has become the imaging standard for prostate cancer in various clinical settings, with interpretation standardized according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Each year, hundreds of scientific studies that report on the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS are published. To keep up with this ever-increasing evidence base, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential. As systematic reviews are highly resource-intensive, we investigated whether a machine learning framework can reduce the manual workload and speed up the screening process (title and abstract). We used search results from a living systematic review of the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS (1585 studies, of which 482 were potentially eligible after screening). A naïve Bayesian classifier was implemented in an active learning environment for classification of the titles and abstracts. Our outcome variable was the percentage of studies that can be excluded after 95% of relevant studies have been identified by the classifier (work saved over sampling: WSS@95%). In simulation runs of the entire screening process (controlling for classifier initiation and the frequency of classifier updating), we obtained a WSS@95% value of 28% (standard error of the mean ±0.1%). Applied prospectively, our classification framework would translate into a significant reduction in manual screening effort. Patient summary: Systematic reviews of scientific evidence are labor-intensive and take a lot of time. For example, many studies on prostate cancer diagnosis via MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) are published every year. We describe the use of machine learning to reduce the manual workload in screening search results. For a review of MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis, this approach reduced the screening workload by about 28%