ReviewProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2026
Primary MRI versus PSA-gated scans in Prostate Cancer Screening - how ready is it for mainstream implementation?
Review in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbnormal PSA test results leading to MRI scans is mainstream practice in prostate cancer diagnosis. However, a similar algorithm may lead to under-detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in disease screening. We compare cancer detection rates (CDR) in screening with MRI prostate only ('primary' MRI) compared to MRI scans triggered by abnormal serum PSA levels ('PSA-gated' MRI).
methodsPubmed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched using key terms of "MRI", "prostate cancer", and "screening" from 01/1/2000-20/4/2024. We included studies investigating the general adult male population not otherwise risk stratified, and extracted outcomes of CDR for csPCa (ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2) and clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ciPCa) (ISUP Grade Group 1), and biopsy rate.
results17 studies were included for final analysis. When including all studies, primary MRI had a higher CDR compared to PSA-gated MRI for all prostate cancer (8.49% vs. 1.88%, p = 0.0223) and csPCa (5.93% vs. 1.15%, p = 0.0180) detection respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in CDR for ciPCa between both groups. In studies directly comparing primary and PSA-gated MRI, primary MRI demonstrated higher odds of detection for all prostate cancer (OR 2.77, 95%CI: 1.71-4.49), csPCa (OR 2.32, 95%CI: 1.37-3.96) and ciPCa (OR 3.11, 95%CI: 1.08-8.97). Limitations include verification bias and heterogeneity between studies.
conclusionsPrimary MRI screening demonstrated higher CDR for csPCa than PSA-gated MRI screening triggered at PSA thresholds of 3-4 ng/ml. There is also higher CDR of ciPCa and adoption of needle biopsies. More granular cost-effectiveness outcomes are required before mainstream implementation is possible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41198919What 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.