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.

Is the digital rectal exam any good as a prostate cancer screening test?

Comparing the Performance of Digital Rectal Examination and Prostate-specific Antigen as a Screening Test for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The diagnostic test accuracy of rectal examination for prostate cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients: a systematic review

Digital Rectal Exam in Prostate Cancer Screening and Elevated PSA Work-up—Is there a role anymore?

The Role of Digital Rectal Examination for Early Detection of Significant Prostate Cancer in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

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

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

Prospective Analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Rectal Examination and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for T Staging of Prostate Cancer.

A discussion on controversies and ethical dilemmas in prostate cancer screening

Performance of the Prostate Health Index in Predicting Prostate Biopsy Outcomes among Men with a Negative Digital Rectal Examination and Transrectal Ultrasonography.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening

The impact of PSA and digital rectal examination on the risk of prostate cancer specific mortality in men with a PSA level <2.5 ng/ml

Clinical examination following preoperative chemoradiation for rectal cancer is not a reliable surrogate end point

Prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, and prostate cancer detection: A study based on more than 7000 transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies in Ghana

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

Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis

B-349 Diagnostic Performance of the Atellica IM High-Sensitivity PSA Assay in Men Undergoing Prostate Cancer Screening

A urine-based Exosomal gene expression test stratifies risk of high-grade prostate Cancer in men with prior negative prostate biopsy undergoing repeat biopsy

Risk stratification 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

Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Following Transrectal and Transperineal Biopsy: Results of the Prostate Biopsy Efficacy and Complications Randomized Clinical Trial