Abstract:ImportanceScreening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing can lead to problems of underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Short, noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or transrectal ultrasonography might overcome these limitations.ObjectiveTo compare the performance of PSA testing, MRI, and ultrasonography as screening tests for prostate cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective, population-based, blinded cohort study was conducted at 7 primary care practices and 2 imaging centers in the United Kingdom. Men 50 to 69 years of age were invited for prostate cancer screening from October 10, 2018, to May 15, 2019.InterventionsAll participants underwent screening with a PSA test, MRI (T2 weighted and diffusion), and ultrasonography (B-mode and shear wave elastography). The tests were independently interpreted without knowledge of other results. Both imaging tests were reported on a validated 5-point scale of suspicion. If any test result was positive, a systematic 12-core biopsy was performed. Additional image fusion–targeted biopsies were performed if the MRI or ultrasonography results were positive.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was the proportion of men with positive MRI or ultrasonography (defined as a score of 3-5 or 4-5) or PSA test (defined as PSA ≥3 μg/L) results. Key secondary outcomes were the number of clinically significant and clinically insignificant cancers detected if each test was used exclusively. Clinically significant cancer was defined as any Gleason score of 3+4 or higher.ResultsA total of 2034 men were invited to participate; of 411 who attended screening, 408 consented to receive all screening tests. The proportion with positive MRI results (score, 3-5) was higher than the proportion with positive PSA test results (72 [17.7%; 95% CI, 14.3%-21.8%] vs 40 [9.9%; 95% CI, 7.3%-13.2%];P < .001). The proportion with positive ultrasonography results (score, 3-5) was also higher than the proportion of those with positive PSA test results (96 [23.7%; 95% CI, 19.8%-28.1%];P < .001). For an imaging threshold of score 4 to 5, the proportion with positive MRI results was similar to the proportion with positive PSA test results (43 [10.6%; 95% CI, 7.9%-14.0%];P = .71), as was the proportion with positive ultrasonography results (52 [12.8%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.5%];P = .15). The PSA test (≥3 ng/mL) detected 7 clinically significant cancers, an MRI score of 3 to 5 detected 14 cancers, an MRI score of 4 to 5 detected 11 cancers, an ultrasonography score of 3 to 5 detected 9 cancer, and an ultrasonography score of 4 to 5 detected 4 cancers. Clinically insignificant cancers were diagnosed by PSA testing in 6 cases, by an MRI score of 3 to 5 in 7 cases, an MRI score of 4 to 5 in 5 cases, an ultrasonography score of 3 to 5 in 13 cases, and an ultrasonography score of 4 to 5 in 7 cases.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, when screening the general population for prostate cancer, MRI using a score of 4 or 5 to define a positive test result compared with PSA alone at 3 ng/mL or higher was associated with more men diagnosed with clinically significant cancer, without an increase in the number of men advised to undergo biopsy or overdiagnosed with clinically insignificant cancer. There was no evidence that ultrasonography would have better performance compared with PSA testing alone.

Repeated Prostate Cancer Screening Using PSA Testing and MRI

The GÖTEBORG prostate cancer screening 2 trial: a prospective, randomised, population-based prostate cancer screening trial with prostate-specific antigen testing followed by magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate

Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging or Ultrasonography

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening at the Age of 45 Years: Results from the First Screening Round of the PROBASE Trial

Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Göteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial

Results after Four Years of Screening for Prostate Cancer with PSA and MRI

A Phase II Prospective Blinded Trial of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and In-Bore Biopsy in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

Reliability of Serial Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Prostate Cancer Progression During Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Prostate Cancer Screening With PSA, Kallikrein Panel, and MRI: The ProScreen Randomized Trial

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Active Surveillance Without Annual Rebiopsy in Patients with Grade Group 1 or 2 Prostate Cancer: The Prospective PROMM-AS Study

Biomarker vs MRI-Enhanced Strategies for Prostate Cancer Screening

Diagnostic Effects of Omitting Systematic Biopsies in Prostate Cancer Screening

EXPRESS: Prostate Cancer Screening: Is it Time for a New Approach? A Review Article

Early experience in avoiding biopsies for biopsy-naïve men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer but non-suspicious biparametric magnetic resonance imaging results and prostate-specific antigen density < 0.15 ng/mL2: A 2-year follow-up study

Cost-Effectiveness of Annual Prostate MRI and Potential MRI-Guided Biopsy After Prostate-Specific Antigen Test Results

Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for patients under active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review with diagnostic meta-analysis

The Impact of a Second MRI and Re-Biopsy in Patients with Initial Negative Mpmri-Targeted and Systematic Biopsy for PIRADS ≥ 3 Lesions.

MRI-based stratification reduces the risk of overdiagnosis of prostate cancer

Accuracy of prostate cancer screening and other research

Annual mpMRI surveillance: PI-RADS upgrading and increasing trend correlated with patients who harbor clinically significant disease