Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

Koudi Bai,1 Yuan Sun,2 Wei Li,3 Lanlan Zhang41Department of Radiology, Yancheng First Peoples’ Hospital, Yancheng City, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Orthopedics, No.97 Hospital of People’s Liberation Army of China, Xuzhou City, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Medical Imaging, Jiangsu Vocational College of Medicine, Yancheng City, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Pediatrics, Yancheng Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Yancheng City, People’s Republic of ChinaObjective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for local staging of prostate cancer.Methods: Databases of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to May 31, 2018, with language restricted to English. All studies concerning multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) with ADC for detection of extracapsular extension (ECE, T3a) and/or extraprostatic extension (EPE, overall stage of T3) were identified by two reviewers independently, and quality of included studies was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. True positive, false positive, false negative and true negative of each study were extracted to reconstruct the 2×2 tables for evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated with bivariate model and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model, then presented in forest plots. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed, and publication bias was evaluated with Deeks funnel.Results: A total of 18 studies were included, with 6 involved ECE and 12 for EPE. Pooled sensitivity was 80.5% (95% CI 76.5–83.9%) with specificity of 69.1% (95% CI 62.3–75.2%). Multiple subgroup analyses showed that if ADC and length of capsular contact are regarded as independent predictors, pooled sensitivity was 85% (95% CI 77–90%) and 81.1% (95% CI 76.0–85.3%), with specificity of 70.8% (95% CI 56.3–82.0%) and 66.6% (95% CI 57.6–74.5%), respectively. Meta-regression demonstrated that there was no substantially significant difference in types of coil, magnet field strength (1.5T versus 3.0T), and analysis method (per-lesion versus per-patient).Conclusion: By introducing ADC to MRI, we could obtain favorable sensitivity for diagnostic performance of EPE, but with a little decreased specificity.Keywords: apparent diffusion coefficient, prostatic cancer, magnetic resonance imaging, extraprostatic extension, length of capsular contact