Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37002379›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2023

Perceived patient burden and acceptability of MRI in comparison to PSA and ultrasound: results from the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study.

David Eldred-Evans, Mathias Winkler, Natalia Klimowska-Nassar, Paula Burak, Martin J Connor, Francesca Fiorentino, Emily Day, Derek Price, Martin Gammon, Henry Tam and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03702439 (Prostate Cancer Screening Trial Using A Group of Radiological Approaches Including MRI and Ultrasound), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03702439 completednot on this map

Prostate Cancer Screening Trial Using A Group of Radiological Approaches Including MRI and Ultrasound

TypeobservationalSponsorImperial College LondonRan2018 to 2019Enrolled411ConditionsProstate Neoplasm
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

David Eldred-EvansImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6861-8160
Mathias WinklerImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2553-5816
Natalia Klimowska-NassarImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Paula BurakImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Martin J ConnorImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4033-7508
Francesca FiorentinoImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Emily DayImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Derek PricePublic and patient representative, Solihull, UK.
Martin GammonPublic and patient representative, Dorking, Surrey, UK.
Henry TamDepartment of Radiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Heminder SokhiDepartment of Radiology, The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Anwar R PadhaniPaul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5830-5777
Hashim U AhmedImperial Prostate, Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. hashim.ahmed@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1674-6723

Funding

Wellcome Trust 204998/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe IP1-PROSTAGRAM study showed that a short, non-contrast MRI detected more significant cancers with similar rates of biopsy compared to PSA. Herein, we compare the expected and perceived burden of PSA, MRI and ultrasound as screening tests.

methodsIP1-PROSTAGRAM was a prospective, population-based, paired screening study of 408 men conducted at seven UK primary care practices and two imaging centres. The screening tests were serum PSA, non-contrast MRI and ultrasound. If any test was screen-positive, a prostate biopsy was performed. Participants completed an Expected Burden Questionnaire (EBQ) and Perceived Burden Questionnaire (PBQ) before and after each screening test.

resultsThe overall level of burden for MRI and PSA was minimal. Few men reported high levels of anxiety, burden, embarrassment or pain following either MRI or PSA. Participants indicated an overall preference for MRI after completing all screening tests. Of 408 participants, 194 (47.5%) had no preference, 106 (26.0%) preferred MRI and 79 (19.4%) preferred PSA. This indicates that prior to screening, participants preferred MRI compared to PSA (+6.6%, 95% CI 4.4-8.4, p = 0.02) and after completing screening, the preference for MRI was higher (+21.1%, 95% CI 14.9-27.1, p < 0.001). The proportion of participants who strongly agreed with repeating the test was 50.5% for ultrasound, 65% for MRI and 68% for PSA. A larger proportion of participants found ultrasound anxiety-inducing, burdensome, embarrassing and painful compared to both MRI and PSA.

conclusionsProstagram MRI and PSA are both acceptable as screening tests among men aged 50-69 years. Both tests were associated with minimal amounts of anxiety, burden, embarrassment and pain. The majority of participants preferred MRI over PSA and ultrasound. REGISTRATION: This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03702439 .

Indexed as

Prostate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsBiopsyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProspective StudiesProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID37002379
PMCPMC10449626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.