Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26724840›Full record

Trial reportEuropean urology2016

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

Anna Grenabo Bergdahl, Ulrica Wilderäng, Gunnar Aus, Sigrid Carlsson, Jan-Erik Damber, Maria Frånlund, Kjell Geterud, Ali Khatami, Andreas Socratous, Johan Stranne and 2 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Androgens, aging, and prostate health.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Prostate cancer screening-when to start and how to screen?Translational andrology and urology · 2018
    Review
  15. Stopping screening, when and how?Translational andrology and urology · 2018
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Role of mpMRI of the prostate in screening for prostate cancer.Translational andrology and urology · 2017
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. What's new in screening in 2015?Current opinion in urology · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna Grenabo BergdahlDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. Electronic address: anna.grenabo@vgregion.se.
Ulrica WilderängDivision of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Gunnar AusDepartment of Urology, Carlanderska Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sigrid CarlssonDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, NY, USA.
Jan-Erik DamberDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Maria FrånlundDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Kjell GeterudDepartment of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ali KhatamiDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Andreas SocratousDepartment of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Johan StranneDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mikael HellströmDepartment of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jonas HugossonDepartment of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
University of Gothenburg · SESahlgrenska University Hospital · SECarlanderska Sjukhuset · SEMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnetic 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).

objectiveTo compare sequential screening (PSA+MRI) with conventional PSA screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsOf 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.

conclusionA 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.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAgedBiopsyEarly Detection of CancerHumansMalePilot ProjectsProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsSensitivity and SpecificitySingle-Blind MethodProstate-Specific AntigenImagingMRIProstate cancerPSA screening

Identifiers

PMID26724840
PMCPMC4958033
OpenAlexW2215484848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.