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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958033PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.006DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

psa ≥
32
prostate cancer
12
psa
10
magnetic resonance
8
resonance imaging
8
göteborg randomised
8
randomised screening
8
screening trial
8
8
compared psa
8

Similar Publications

Global Perspectives on Returning Genetic Research Results in Parkinson Disease.

Neurol Genet

December 2024

From the Division of Neurology (A.H.T., S.-Y.L.), Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Médicas da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (P.S.-A.), Clínica Santa María, Santiago, Chile; Departamento de Farmacologia (A.F.S.S.), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; Serviço de Neurologia (A.F.S.S.), Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil; Institute of Neurogenetics (H.M., M.L.D., C.K.), University of Lübeck, Germany; Department of Biomedical Science (A.A.-A.), Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research (J.S., B.F.), New York; Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics (C.E.W.), Indiana University, Indianapolis; Department of Neuroscience and Brain Health (M.L.D.), Metropolitan Medical Center, Manila, Philippines; Centre for Preventive Neurology (S.D., M.T.P., A.J.N.), Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom; Unidad de Trastornos del Movimiento (M.T.P.), Servicio de Neurología y Neurofisiología Clínica, Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío/CSIC/Universidad de Sevilla, Spain; Laboratory of Neurogenetics (M.B.M.), National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Department of Clinical and Movement Neurosciences (M.B.M., H.R.M.), UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, United Kingdom; Department of Neurology (R.N.A.), Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York; Movement Disorders Division (R.N.A.), Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center and Tel Aviv School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel; Molecular Medicine Laboratory and Neurology Department (K.R.K.), Concord Clinical School, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, The University of Sydney; Translational Neurogenomics Group (K.R.K.), Genomic and Inherited Disease Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research; and St Vincent's Healthcare Campus (K.R.K.), Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.

Background And Objectives: In the era of precision medicine, genetic test results have become increasingly relevant in the care of patients with Parkinson disease (PD). While large research consortia are performing widespread research genetic testing to accelerate discoveries, debate continues about whether, and to what extent, the results should be returned to patients. Ethically, it is imperative to keep participants informed, especially when findings are potentially actionable.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • The study analyzes how clinical risk stratification can be used to assess the advantages of long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ltADT) compared to short-term therapy (stADT) in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients.
  • Results indicate that patients with very-high risk features have greater improvements in survival outcomes when treated with ltADT, although the variation in treatment effects across different risk groups is not statistically significant.
  • The findings suggest the need for further clinical trials to refine risk stratification methods and better identify which high-risk localized prostate cancer patients could benefit more from longer therapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Incidence and Survival of Patients With Prostate Cancer in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany.

Clin Genitourin Cancer

December 2024

Cancer Registry North-Rhine Westphalia gGmbH, Bochum 44801, Germany; University Hospital Essen, Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Essen 45147, Germany.

Introduction: There is no organized prostate cancer screening in Germany. The aim of this study was to investigate the development of incidence and survival in patients with primary malignant tumors of the prostate in relation to changing recommendations of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in guidelines.

Methods: Age-standardized incidence rates and 5-year relative survival (RS) (period approach) were calculated using data from the cancer registry North Rhine-Westphalia with the subset of the administrative district Münster respectively for the years 1992-2019.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: Over the years, several prognostic models were developed in patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), while data on androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSI) in a real-world setting are limited.

Patients And Methods: We compared a consecutive series of 565 mCRPC patients receiving first-line ARSI at 4 high-volume Italian Centers (development set) to an external series of 180 patients receiving the same treatment at another Italian high-volume Center (training set), between 2011 and 2022. Sixteen clinical and baseline laboratory variables were selected to develop a prognostic model.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • A study was conducted to evaluate the effects of 4-week vs. 6-week treatment intervals for Lu-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted radioligand therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
  • The results showed that the 4-week interval led to a higher PSA response (47.8% vs. 21.7%) and longer PSA-progression-free survival (26.0 weeks vs. 18.0 weeks), but the overall survival rates were not significantly different (15.1 months vs. 18.4 months).
  • The 4-week treatment increased the risk of blood count reductions compared to the 6-week interval, suggesting a need for more research to
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!