ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Incidental findings on prostate MRI in a population-based screening setting.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the frequency and types of incidental findings on prostate MRI in a screening setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsProstate MRI reports from 2020 to 2024 for men aged 50-56 years were collected from three regional organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) programmes in Sweden. Incidental findings were categorised as suspicious for extra-prostatic malignancy, otherwise likely clinically relevant or of low or no clinical relevance that do not motivate contact with the screened man. Confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for proportions of scans with an incidental finding. Chi-square testing was used to test inter-regional differences of reported findings.
resultsAt least one incidental finding was described in 119/1202 (9.9%) MRI reports. Ten reports described two incidental findings. Most (112/129, 87%) were categorised as of low or no clinical relevance, with inguinal hernia and colon diverticulosis being the most common. Proportions of these findings varied significantly (p = 0.005) between the regions: 47/355 (13%; 95% CI 10-17%), 47/539 (8.7%; 95% CI 6.5-11%) and 15/308 (5.8%; 95% CI 3.5-9.0%). Overall, 17/1202 (1.4%) of the reports described a suspected extra-prostatic malignancy or otherwise clearly clinically relevant incidental finding. Suspected extra-prostatic malignancy findings were four suspected tumours in the rectum, four suspected tumours in the bladder and two bone metastases with an unknown primary tumour.
conclusionScreening prostate MRI in men in their fifties yields few incidental findings of clear clinical importance. Reporting of incidental findings of low/no clinical relevance varies between centres. Consensus-based guidelines are needed to define which types of incidental findings should be reported and notified to the screened individuals. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Screening prostate MRI detects few incidental findings of clear clinical relevance. Findings of low or no clinical relevance are variably reported, which calls for consensus-based guidelines on which types of incidental findings on screening prostate MRI should be reported. KEY POINTS: No previous study has reported incidental findings on prostate MRI in a population-based screening setting. Screening prostate MRI detects few incidental findings of clear clinical relevance. Incidental findings of low or no clinical relevance are variably reported across centres. There is a need for consensus-based guidelines for which types of incidental findings on screening prostate MRI should be reported and notified to the screened individual.
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.