Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Jun 1;10(6):745-754.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0734.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Tamás Fazekas et al. JAMA Oncol. .

Abstract

Importance: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly integrated within the prostate cancer (PCa) early detection pathway.

Objective: To systematically evaluate the existing evidence regarding screening pathways incorporating MRI with targeted biopsy and assess their diagnostic value compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening with systematic biopsy strategies.

Data sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane/Central, Scopus, and Web of Science (through May 2023).

Study selection: Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies were eligible if they reported data on the diagnostic utility of prostate MRI in the setting of PCa screening.

Data extraction: Number of screened individuals, biopsy indications, biopsies performed, clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher, and insignificant (ISUP1) PCas detected were extracted.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was csPCa detection rate. Secondary outcomes included clinical insignificant PCa detection rate, biopsy indication rates, and the positive predictive value for the detection of csPCa.

Data synthesis: The generalized mixed-effect approach with pooled odds ratios (ORs) and random-effect models was used to compare the MRI-based and PSA-only screening strategies. Separate analyses were performed based on the timing of MRI (primary/sequential after a PSA test) and cutoff (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3 or ≥4) for biopsy indication.

Results: Data were synthesized from 80 114 men from 12 studies. Compared with standard PSA-based screening, the MRI pathway (sequential screening, PI-RADS score ≥3 cutoff for biopsy) was associated with higher odds of csPCa when tests results were positive (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.93-5.88; P ≤ .001), decreased odds of biopsies (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.22-0.36; P ≤ .001), and insignificant cancers detected (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.49; P = .002) without significant differences in the detection of csPCa (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.37; P = .86). Implementing a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater threshold for biopsy selection was associated with a further reduction in the odds of detecting insignificant PCa (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.97; P = .048) and biopsies performed (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.38; P = .01) without differences in csPCa detection (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .22).

Conclusion and relevance: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that integrating MRI in PCa screening pathways is associated with a reduced number of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of insignificant PCa while maintaining csPCa detection as compared with PSA-only screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Fazekas reported grants from the Ministry for Innovation and Technology New National Excellence Program and the European Association of Urology EUSP Scholarship during the conduct of the study. Dr Kasivisvanathan reported personal fees from the European Association of Urology and salary support from Prostate Cancer UK and the John Black Charitable Foundation outside the submitted work. Dr Kói received grant support from the National Research, Development and Innovation Office. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Flowchart of the Study Selection Process
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Standard Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA)–Based Screening Strategies in Terms of Prostate Cancer Detection, Biopsy Indication Rates, and Positive Predictive Value (PPV)
Screening pathways incorporating MRI were associated with a reduced number of clinically insignificant disease (A) and biopsies (B); moreover, they also outperformed PSA-only strategies in terms of PPV for clinically significant prostate cancer detection (C). MRI was applied as a sequential screening tool (after PSA-prescreen), with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score of 3 or higher as a cutoff for biopsy indication. CDR indicates cancer detection rate; OR, odds ratio.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) With a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Score of 4 or Higher as a Cutoff for Biopsy Indication
Elevating the PI-RADS cutoff to 4 for the indication of biopsy was associated with lower biopsy rates (B) and less insignificant prostate cancers found (A) compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Moreover, it enhanced the positive predictive value (PPV) for significant disease detection (C). MRI was applied as a sequential screening tool (after PSA prescreening) in this analysis. CDR indicates cancer detection rate; OR, odds ratio.

References

    1. Ilic D, Djulbegovic M, Jung JH, et al. . Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;362:k3519. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3519 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. de Vos II, Meertens A, Hogenhout R, Remmers S, Roobol MJ; ERSPC Rotterdam Study Group . A detailed evaluation of the effect of prostate-specific antigen-based screening on morbidity and mortality of prostate cancer: 21-year follow-up results of the Rotterdam section of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2023;84(4):426-434. - PubMed
    1. Mottet N, Cornford P, Bergh RCN, et al. . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Accessed March 15, 2023. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer
    1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network . Prostate cancer guideline version 4.2022. Accessed May 22, 2022. https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?category=1&id=1459
    1. Vickers A, O’Brien F, Montorsi F, et al. . Current policies on early detection of prostate cancer create overdiagnosis and inequity with minimal benefit. BMJ. 2023;381:e071082. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-071082 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances