Abstract:Background Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) is standardized by the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), currently in version 2.1. A systematic review and meta-analysis infrastructure with a 12-month update cycle was established to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS over time. Purpose To provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy and cancer detection rates (CDRs) of PI-RADS version 2.1 categories for prostate MRI, which is required for further evidence-based patient management. Materials and Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and multiple trial registers (English-language studies published from March 1, 2019, to August 30, 2022) was performed. Studies that reported data on diagnostic accuracy or CDRs of PI-RADS version 2.1 with csPCa as the primary outcome were included. For the meta-analysis, pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and CDRs were derived from extracted data at the lesion level and patient level. Sensitivity and specificity for PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 and PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4 considered as test positive were investigated. In addition to individual PI-RADS categories 1-5, subgroup analyses of subcategories (ie, 2+1, 3+0) were performed. Results A total of 70 studies (11 686 lesions, 13 330 patients) were included. At the patient level, with PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 considered positive, meta-analysis found a 96% summary sensitivity (95% CI: 95, 98) and 43% specificity (95% CI: 33, 54), with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.93). For PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4, meta-analysis found an 89% sensitivity (95% CI: 85, 92) and 66% specificity (95% CI: 58, 74), with an area under the SROC curve of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.92). CDRs were as follows: PI-RADS 1, 6%; PI-RADS 2, 5%; PI-RADS 3, 19%; PI-RADS 4, 54%; and PI-RADS 5, 84%. The CDR was 12% (95% CI: 7, 19) for transition zone 2+1 lesions and 19% (95% CI: 12, 29) for 3+0 lesions (P = .12). Conclusion Estimates of diagnostic accuracy and CDRs for PI-RADS version 2.1 categories are provided for quality benchmarking and to guide further evidence-based patient management. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Tammisetti and Jacobs in this issue.

Automatic PI-RADS assignment by means of formal methods

Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 in Combination with Clinical Parameters for Prostate Cancer Detection: a Single Center Experience

Machine learning-based analysis of a semi-automated PI-RADS v2.1 scoring for prostate cancer

Deep‐Learning‐Based Artificial Intelligence for PI‐RADS Classification to Assist Multiparametric Prostate MRI Interpretation: A Development Study

Machine Learning and Clinical-Radiological Characteristics for the Classification of Prostate Cancer in PI-RADS 3 Lesions

PI-RADS AI : introducing a new human-in-the-loop AI model for prostate cancer diagnosis based on MRI

Autonomous Detection and Classification of PI-RADS Lesions in an MRI Screening Population Incorporating Multicenter-Labeled Deep Learning and Biparametric Imaging: Proof of Concept

A Validation Study of the Deep-Learning-Based Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Scoring Algorithm

Assessment of a fully-automated diagnostic AI software in prostate MRI: Clinical evaluation and histopathological correlation

Challenges in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis from Multiparametric Imaging Data

The Efficiency of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpmri) Using PI-RADS Version 2 in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

Risk score model to automatically detect prostate cancer patients by integrating diagnostic parameters

Artificial intelligence as diagnostic aiding tool in cases of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3: the results of retrospective multi-center cohort study

PI-RADS Score of Prostate Multi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Pathological Features of Prostate Cancer:An Imaging to Whole-Mount Pathology Matching Study

Utility of Clinical-Radiomic Model to Identify Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Biparametric MRI PI-RADS V2.1 Category 3 Lesions

Deep learning AI and Restriction Spectrum Imaging for patient-level detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI

Restriction Spectrum Imaging as a quantitative biomarker for prostate cancer with reliable positive predictive value

Structured report of prostate MRI based on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2

Update on PI-RADS Version 2.1 Diagnostic Performance Benchmarks for Prostate MRI: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Multiparametric Prostate MRI Accuracy of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (v2.1) Scores 4 and 5: The Influence of Image Quality According to the Prostate Imaging Quality Score

Magnetic resonance imaging radiomics-based prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer in equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions in the transitional zone