» Articles » PMID: 26724840

Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study Within the Göteborg Randomised Screening Trial

Overview
Journal Eur Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2016 Jan 4
PMID 26724840
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and targeted biopsies (TB) have shown potential to more accurately detect significant prostate cancer compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and systematic biopsies (SB).

Objective: To compare sequential screening (PSA+MRI) with conventional PSA screening.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Of 384 attendees in the 10th screening round of the Göteborg randomised screening trial, 124 men, median age 69.5 yr, had a PSA of ≥ 1.8 ng/ml and underwent a prebiopsy MRI. Men with suspicious lesions on MRI and/or PSA ≥ 3.0ng/ml were referred for biopsy. SB was performed blinded to MRI results and TB was performed in men with tumour-suspicious findings on MRI. Three screening strategies were compared (PSA ≥ 3.0+SB; PSA ≥ 3.0+MRI+TB and PSA ≥ 1.8+MRI+TB).

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated per screening strategy and compared using McNemar's test.

Results And Limitations: In total, 28 cases of prostate cancer were detected, of which 20 were diagnosed in biopsy-naïve men. Both PSA ≥ 3.0+MRI and PSA ≥ 1.8+MRI significantly increased specificity compared with PSA ≥ 3.0+SB (0.92 and 0.79 vs 0.52; p<0.002 for both), while sensitivity was significantly higher for PSA ≥ 1.8+MRI compared with PSA ≥ 3.0+MRI (0.73 vs 0.46, p=0.008). The detection rate of significant cancer was higher with PSA ≥ 1.8+MRI compared with PSA ≥ 3.0+SB (5.9% vs 4.0%), while the detection rate of insignificant cancer was lowered by PSA ≥ 3.0+MRI (0.3% vs 1.2%). The primary limitation of this study is the small sample of men.

Conclusion: A screening strategy with a lowered PSA cut-off followed by TB in MRI-positive men seems to increase the detection of significant cancers while improving specificity. If replicated, these results may contribute to a paradigm shift in future screening.

Patient Summary: Major concerns in prostate-specific antigen screening are overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis. We evaluated whether prostate magnetic resonance imaging could improve the balance of benefits to harm in prostate cancer screening screening, and we found a promising potential of using magnetic resonance imaging in addition to prostate-specific antigen.

Citing Articles

Theranostics of Primary Prostate Cancer: Beyond PSMA and GRP-R.

Schollhammer R, Quintyn Ranty M, de Clermont Gallerande H, Cavelier F, Valverde I, Vimont D Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(8).

PMID: 37190273 PMC: 10137308. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15082345.


Androgens, aging, and prostate health.

Welen K, Damber J Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2022; 23(6):1221-1231.

PMID: 35748976 PMC: 9789017. DOI: 10.1007/s11154-022-09730-z.


A narrative review of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) implementation on screening, detection, and the overall accuracy for prostate cancer.

Greenberg J, Koller C, Casado C, Triche B, Krane L Ther Adv Urol. 2022; 14:17562872221096377.

PMID: 35531364 PMC: 9073105. DOI: 10.1177/17562872221096377.


MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer: current evidence and future challenges.

Wurnschimmel C, Chandrasekar T, Hahn L, Esen T, Shariat S, Tilki D World J Urol. 2022; 41(4):921-928.

PMID: 35226140 PMC: 10160206. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-03947-y.


Beyond Prostate Specific Antigen: New Prostate Cancer Screening Options.

Narain T, Sooriakumaran P World J Mens Health. 2022; 40(1):66-73.

PMID: 34983086 PMC: 8761236. DOI: 10.5534/wjmh.210076.


References
1.
Ouzzane A, Puech P, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Nevoux P, Betrouni N . Combined multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies improve anterior prostate cancer detection, staging, and grading. Urology. 2011; 78(6):1356-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.06.022. View

2.
Bittencourt L, Litjens G, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Turkbey B, Gasparetto E, Barentsz J . Prostate Cancer: The European Society of Urogenital Radiology Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Criteria for Predicting Extraprostatic Extension by Using 3-T Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology. 2015; 276(2):479-89. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.15141412. View

3.
Barentsz J, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G . ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(4):746-57. PMC: 3297750. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y. View

4.
Arnsrud Godtman R, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Stranne J, Hugosson J . Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer. Results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol. 2012; 63(1):101-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.066. View

5.
Thompson I, Pauler D, Goodman P, Tangen C, Lucia M, Parnes H . Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350(22):2239-46. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa031918. View