Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactive, Up-to-date Meta-Analysis of MRI in the Management of Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to test an interactive up-to-date meta-analysis (iu-ma) of studies on MRI in the management of men with suspected prostate cancer. Based on the findings of recently published systematic reviews and meta-analyses, two freely accessible dynamic meta-analyses (https://iu-ma.org) were designed using the programming language R in combination with the package “shiny.” The first iu-ma compares the performance of the MRI-stratified pathway and the systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy pathway for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, while the second iu-ma focuses on the use of biparametric versus multiparametric MRI for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Our iu-mas allow for the effortless addition of new studies and data, thereby enabling physicians to keep track of the most recent scientific developments without having to resort to classical static meta-analyses that may become outdated in a short period of time. Furthermore, the iu-mas enable in-depth subgroup analyses by a wide variety of selectable parameters. Such an analysis is not only tailored to the needs of the reader but is also far more comprehensive than a classical meta-analysis. In that respect, following multiple subgroup analyses, we found that even for various subgroups, detection rates of prostate cancer are not different between biparametric and multiparametric MRI. Secondly, we could confirm the favorable influence of MRI biopsy stratification for multiple clinical scenarios. For the future, we envisage the use of this technology in addressing further clinical questions of other organ systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Krumholz HM: The end of journals. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 8:533–534, 2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Paats A, Alumäe T, Meister E, Fridolin I: Retrospective analysis of clinical performance of an estonian speech recognition system for radiology: effects of different acoustic and language models. J Digit Imaging 31:615–621, 2018

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Denck J, Landschütz W, Nairz K, Heverhagen JT, Maier A, Rothgang E: Automated billing code retrieval from MRI scanner log data. J Digit Imaging 32:1103–1111, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00241-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Alkadi R, Taher F, El-baz A, Werghi N: A deep learning-based approach for the detection and localization of prostate cancer in T2 magnetic resonance images. J Digit Imaging 32:793–807, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-018-0160-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Soher BJ, Dale BM, Merkle EM: A review of MR physics: 3T versus 1.5T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin Am 15:277–290, 2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schimmöller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, Hiester A, Buchbender C, Rabenalt R, Albers P, Antoch G, Blondin D: MR-sequences for prostate cancer diagnostics: validation based on the PI-RADS scoring system and targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur Radiol 24:2582–2589, 2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoeks CMA, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SWTPJ, Scheenen TWJ, Vos PC, Huisman H, Van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Heerschap A, Fütterer JJ: Prostate cancer: Multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261:46–66, 2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, Gabbert HE, Becker N, Antoch G, Albers P, Schimmöller L: Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 68:713–720, 2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S: PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40, 2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sackett DL: Evidence-based medicine. Semin Perinatol 21:3–5, 1997

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Greenhalgh T: How to Read a Paper, 5th edition. BMJ Books, 2010

  12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Altman DG, Antes G, Atkins D, Barbour V, Barrowman N, Berlin JA, Clark J, Clarke M, Cook D, D’Amico R, Deeks JJ, Devereaux PJ, Dickersin K, Egger M, Ernst E, Gøtzsche PC, Grimshaw J, Guyatt G, Higgins J, Ioannidis JPA, Kleijnen J, Lang T, Magrini N, McNamee D, Moja L, Mulrow C, Napoli M, Oxman A, Pham B, Rennie D, Sampson M, Schulz KF, Shekelle PG, Tovey D, Tugwell P, PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Chin Integr Med 7:889–896, 2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Woo S, Suh CH, Eastham JA, Zelefsky MJ, Morris MJ, Abida W, Scher HI, Sidlow R, Becker AS, Wibmer AG, Hricak H, Vargas HA: Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-stratified Clinical Pathways and Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy Pathway for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled T. Eur Urol Oncol, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SHSYSH, Cho JY, Kim SHSYSH, Moon MH: Head-to-head comparison between biparametric and multiparametric mri for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 211:W226–W241, 2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JAC, Egger M, Deeks JJ, Shang A, Bachmann LM: An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.09.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JPT, Mavergames C, Gruen RL: Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Becker AS, Cornelius A, Reiner CS, Stocker D, Ulbrich EJ, Barth BK, Mortezavi A, Eberli D, Donati OF: 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 94, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brown B: Keeping Current with the Literature, n.d.. https://www.nihlibrary.nih.gov/resources/subject-guides/keeping-current (accessed April 8, 2019).

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the R core developer team and the R community.

Funding

This research was funded in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. ASB was supported by the Peter Michael Foundation (USA), the Prof. Dr. Max Cloëtta Foundation (CH), medAlumni UZH (CH), and the Swiss Society of Radiology (CH). JK was supported by a grant of the European Society of Radiology (ESOR).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Anton S. Becker, Julian Kirchner, Thomas Sartoretti, Soleen Ghafoor, Sungmin Woo, Joseph P. Erinjeri, Hedvig Hricak & H. Alberto Vargas

  2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Chong Hyun Suh

Authors
  1. Anton S. Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Kirchner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Sartoretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Soleen Ghafoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sungmin Woo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chong Hyun Suh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joseph P. Erinjeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hedvig Hricak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. H. Alberto Vargas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anton S. Becker.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 26 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Becker, A.S., Kirchner, J., Sartoretti, T. et al. Interactive, Up-to-date Meta-Analysis of MRI in the Management of Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer. J Digit Imaging 33, 586–594 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00312-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00312-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation