Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Ultrasonography

Key Points Question In men invited to undergo screening for prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasonography, and prostate-specific antigen testing, what is the prevalence of positive test results, rates of biopsy, and detection of prostate cancer? Findings In this cohort study in which 408 men underwent 3 screening tests, an MRI score of 4 or 5 was associated with improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer without an increase in the number of men who underwent biopsy or were overdiagnosed with clinically insignificant prostate cancer if prostate-specific antigen testing alone was used. Ultrasonography was not associated with improved screening performance. Meaning These findings suggest that a short, noncontrast MRI may have favorable performance characteristics as a community-based screening test.

[1]  A. Padhani,et al.  Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test? , 2020, Nature Reviews Urology.

[2]  M. Rovers,et al.  High Diagnostic Performance of Short Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-naïve Men: The Next Step in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Accessibility. , 2019, European urology.

[3]  H. Brenner,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies-A Systematic Review. , 2019, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[4]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  A 16-yr Follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. , 2019, European urology.

[5]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. , 2019, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[6]  W. Xue,et al.  A Nomogram Based on a TRUS Five-Grade Scoring System for the Prediction of Prostate Cancer and High Grade Prostate Cancer at Initial TRUS-Guided Biopsy , 2018, Journal of Cancer.

[7]  Tristan Barrett,et al.  National implementation of multi‐parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection – recommendations from a UK consensus meeting , 2018, BJU international.

[8]  Victoria Hagens,et al.  Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process , 2018, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[9]  D. Margolis,et al.  MRI‐Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate‐Cancer Diagnosis , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  J. Sterne,et al.  Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial , 2018, JAMA.

[11]  Liang Sang,et al.  Accuracy of shear wave elastography for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[12]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .

[13]  M. Haider,et al.  A Pilot Study to Evaluate the Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Screening in the General Population. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[14]  Martin Eklund,et al.  Prostate cancer screening in men aged 50-69 years (STHLM3): a prospective population-based diagnostic study. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

[15]  Matthias Egger,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[16]  Ian M Thompson,et al.  Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower. , 2005, JAMA.

[17]  J. Crowley,et al.  Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  R. Warren,et al.  Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms , 1996, BMJ.

[19]  David Cosgrove,et al.  WFUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Use of Ultrasound Elastography: Part 5. Prostate. , 2017, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[20]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[21]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. , 2016, European urology.

[22]  Christiane,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2013, JAMA.

[23]  A. Zlotta,et al.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Glea- son Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma , 2006 .

[24]  L. Naing,et al.  Practical Issues in Calculating the Sample Size for Prevalence Studies , 2006 .