Martin Eklund1, Fredrik Jäderling1, Andrea Discacciati1, Martin Bergman1, Magnus Annerstedt1, Markus Aly1, Axel Glaessgen1, Stefan Carlsson1, Henrik Grönberg1, Tobias Nordström1. 1. From the Departments of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (M.E., A.D., M.B., H.G., T.N.) and Molecular Medicine and Surgery (F.J., M. Aly, S.C.), and the Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital (T.N.), Karolinska Institutet, the Department of Diagnostic Radiology (F.J.), the Department of Surgery (M.B., H.G.) and the Department of Clinical Pathology and Cytology, Unilabs (A.G.), Capio St. Göran's Hospital, C-Medical Urology Odenplan (M. Annerstedt), and the Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital Solna (M. Aly, S.C.) - all in Stockholm.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High rates of overdiagnosis are a critical barrier to organized prostate cancer screening. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsy has shown the potential to address this challenge, but the implications of its use in the context of organized prostate cancer screening are unknown. METHODS: We conducted a population-based noninferiority trial of prostate cancer screening in which men 50 to 74 years of age from the general population were invited by mail to participate; participants with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng per milliliter or higher were randomly assigned, in a 2:3 ratio, to undergo a standard biopsy (standard biopsy group) or to undergo MRI, with targeted and standard biopsy if the MRI results suggested prostate cancer (experimental biopsy group). The primary outcome was the proportion of men in the intention-to-treat population in whom clinically significant cancer (Gleason score ≥7) was diagnosed. A key secondary outcome was the detection of clinically insignificant cancers (Gleason score 6). RESULTS: Of 12,750 men enrolled, 1532 had PSA levels of 3 ng per milliliter or higher and were randomly assigned to undergo biopsy: 603 were assigned to the standard biopsy group and 929 to the experimental biopsy group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, clinically significant cancer was diagnosed in 192 men (21%) in the experimental biopsy group, as compared with 106 men (18%) in the standard biopsy group (difference, 3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1 to 7; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The percentage of clinically insignificant cancers was lower in the experimental biopsy group than in the standard biopsy group (4% [41 participants] vs. 12% [73 participants]; difference, -8 percentage points; 95% CI, -11 to -5). CONCLUSIONS: MRI with targeted and standard biopsy in men with MRI results suggestive of prostate cancer was noninferior to standard biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in a population-based screening-by-invitation trial and resulted in less detection of clinically insignificant cancer. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; STHLM3-MRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03377881.).
BACKGROUND: High rates of overdiagnosis are a critical barrier to organized prostate cancer screening. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsy has shown the potential to address this challenge, but the implications of its use in the context of organized prostate cancer screening are unknown. METHODS: We conducted a population-based noninferiority trial of prostate cancer screening in which men 50 to 74 years of age from the general population were invited by mail to participate; participants with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng per milliliter or higher were randomly assigned, in a 2:3 ratio, to undergo a standard biopsy (standard biopsy group) or to undergo MRI, with targeted and standard biopsy if the MRI results suggested prostate cancer (experimental biopsy group). The primary outcome was the proportion of men in the intention-to-treat population in whom clinically significant cancer (Gleason score ≥7) was diagnosed. A key secondary outcome was the detection of clinically insignificant cancers (Gleason score 6). RESULTS: Of 12,750 men enrolled, 1532 had PSA levels of 3 ng per milliliter or higher and were randomly assigned to undergo biopsy: 603 were assigned to the standard biopsy group and 929 to the experimental biopsy group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, clinically significant cancer was diagnosed in 192 men (21%) in the experimental biopsy group, as compared with 106 men (18%) in the standard biopsy group (difference, 3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1 to 7; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The percentage of clinically insignificant cancers was lower in the experimental biopsy group than in the standard biopsy group (4% [41 participants] vs. 12% [73 participants]; difference, -8 percentage points; 95% CI, -11 to -5). CONCLUSIONS: MRI with targeted and standard biopsy in men with MRI results suggestive of prostate cancer was noninferior to standard biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in a population-based screening-by-invitation trial and resulted in less detection of clinically insignificant cancer. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; STHLM3-MRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03377881.).
Authors: Alexander P Cole; Bjoern J Langbein; Francesco Giganti; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Mark Emberton Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Spyridon P Basourakos; Roman Gulati; Randy A Vince; Daniel E Spratt; Patrick J Lewicki; Alexander Hill; Yaw A Nyame; Jennifer Cullen; Sarah C Markt; Christopher E Barbieri; Jim C Hu; Erika Trapl; Jonathan E Shoag Journal: NEJM Evid Date: 2022-05-15
Authors: Chengyue Wu; Guillermo Lorenzo; David A Hormuth; Ernesto A B F Lima; Kalina P Slavkova; Julie C DiCarlo; John Virostko; Caleb M Phillips; Debra Patt; Caroline Chung; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Biophys Rev (Melville) Date: 2022-05-17
Authors: Jan Chandra Engel; Thorgerdur Palsdottir; Donna Ankerst; Sebastiaan Remmers; Ashkan Mortezavi; Venkatesh Chellappa; Lars Egevad; Henrik Grönberg; Martin Eklund; Tobias Nordström Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-05-19
Authors: Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Bernd Joachim Krause; Viktoria Schütz; David Bonekamp; Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck; Markus Hohenfellner Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 8.251
Authors: Basil Kaufmann; Karim Saba; Tobias S Schmidli; Stephanie Stutz; Leon Bissig; Anna Jelena Britschgi; Evodia Schaeren; Alexander Gu; Nicole Langenegger; Tullio Sulser; Daniel Eberli; Etienne X Keller; Thomas Hermanns; Cédric Poyet Journal: Prostate Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 4.012