Prevalence of MRI lesions in men responding to a GP-led invitation for a prostate health check: A prospective cohort study

10Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective In men with a raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA), MRI increases the detection of clinically significant cancer and reduces overdiagnosis, with fewer biopsies. MRI as a screening tool has not been assessed independently of PSA in a formal screening study. We report a systematic community-based assessment of the prevalence of prostate MRI lesions in an age-selected population. Methods and analysis Men aged 50-75 were identified from participating general practice (GP) practices and randomly selected for invitation to a screening MRI and PSA. Men with a positive MRI or a raised PSA density (≥0.12 ng/mL2) were recommended for standard National Health Service (NHS) prostate cancer assessment. Results Eight GP practices sent invitations to 2096 men. 457 men (22%) responded and 303 completed both screening tests. Older white men were most likely to respond to the invitation, with black men having 20% of the acceptance rate of white men. One in six men (48/303 men, 16%) had a positive screening MRI, and an additional 1 in 20 men (16/303, 5%) had a raised PSA density alone. After NHS assessment, 29 men (9.6%) were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer and 3 men (1%) with clinically insignificant cancer. Two in three men with a positive MRI, and more than half of men with clinically significant disease had a PSA <3 ng/ mL. Conclusions Prostate MRI may have value in screening independently of PSA. These data will allow modelling of the use of MRI as a primary screening tool to inform larger prostate cancer screening studies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Moore, C. M., Frangou, E., McCartan, N., Santaolalla, A., Kopcke, D., Brembilla, G., … Hira. (2023). Prevalence of MRI lesions in men responding to a GP-led invitation for a prostate health check: A prospective cohort study. BMJ Oncology, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000057

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free