Trial reportJAMA network open2024
Repeated Prostate Cancer Screening Using Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Secondary Analysis of the STHLM3-MRI Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03377881 (STHLM3 MR Phase 2), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
STHLM3 MR Phase 2: A New Diagnostic Chain for Prostate Cancer Detection Using the Stockholm3 Test and MR/Fusion Biopsies
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to correspondence regarding "The value of micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer screening: a retrospective real-world feasibility study".Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- Evolving role of biomarkers beyond prostate‑specific antigen in refining prostate cancer screening: From blood‑based tests to urinary and genetic markers (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Ongoing and completed clinical trials on prostate cancer screening using MRI.European radiology · 2026Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of a 'stage-gated' approach for reporting prostate screening MRI: "Is less more?"European radiology · 2026Article
- Role of prostate health index (PHI) in prostate cancer screening: cost minimization analysis through simulation modelling.World journal of urology · 2025Observational
- Prostate MRI Using Deep Learning Reconstruction in Response to Cancer Screening Demands-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Refining the need for prostate biopsy and the evolving role of MRI.European radiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrating radiological and clinical data for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with machine learning techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prostate Cancer Screening With MRI: Lessons Learned From Repeat Rounds of the GÖTEBORG-2 and STHLM3-MRI Trials.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Article
- [Prostate cancer screening? Only evidence-based, risk-adjusted, and organized!]Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byBeyond the2024
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proposed to enhance the benefit-to-harm ratio of prostate cancer screening, but data on repeated screening outcomes are lacking. Objective: To describe outcomes of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening with MRI and prostate biopsies at repeat screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis examined the population-based, screen-by-invitation STHLM3-MRI randomized clinical trial, which recruited Swedish men aged 50 to 74 years. Men were eligible for repeat screening at 2 to 3 years if they had PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or greater at trial inclusion, were randomized to the MRI-targeted group (including screening using biomarkers and MRI), and were not diagnosed with prostate cancer after the first screening round. Repeat screening was performed between November 10, 2021, and February 20, 2023. Data analysis was performed between May and August 2023. Intervention: Participants underwent blood sampling, including PSA testing. A biparametric MRI scan was performed if PSA levels were 3 ng/mL or greater, and men with lesions with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3 or greater were referred for targeted and systematic biopsies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of ≥3 + 4). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men with clinically insignificant cancer (Gleason score of 6), the number of elevated PSA tests, MRI scans, and biopsy procedures. Results: Of 7609 men from the first screening round, 2078 (27.3%) were eligible for and were invited for rescreening. Among the invitees, 1500 (72.2%) participated. Their median age was 67 (IQR, 61-72) years. Of 1094 men with PSA levels between 1.5 and 2.9 ng/mL in the first screening round, 326 (29.8%) had levels of 3 ng/mL or greater in the second round. Overall, 667 men (44.5%) had PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or greater: 617 underwent MRI (92.5%), revealing 51 (7.6%) with equivocal lesions (PI-RADS score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) with suspicious lesions (PI-RADS score of ≥4). Only 10 of 383 men (2.6%) with a prior negative MRI result had a lesion with a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater. Among the 1500 rescreened men, 48 (3.2%) had a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater, including 19 (1.3%) with a score of 4 + 3 or greater and 11 (0.7%) with a score of 6. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the STHLM3-MRI randomized clinical trial, cancer detection during the second screening round in biennial PSA and MRI-based prostate cancer screening was limited, and the detection of low-grade tumors remained low. A substantial proportion of men exhibited elevated PSA levels during rescreening, and a considerable portion of MRI scans performed lacked lesions suggestive of cancer. Future studies should explore strategies to reduce MRI-related resource use. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03377881.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.