A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Biopsy Strategies in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background And Objective: Prostate cancer (PCa) screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) thresholding and systematic biopsies reduces advanced disease presentations and cancer-specific mortality, but also leads to overdiagnosis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) integration may maintain screening benefits, while reducing overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies. This review analyses the benefit-harm balance when MRI is integrated as first-line and second-stage (after PSA >3 ng/ml) test in PCa screening.

Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, we performed a PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CRD420251006926). Literature searches identified five first-line and four second-stage MRI screening studies. We assessed MRI strategies (first-line/second-stage and risk thresholds), biopsy avoidance, and biopsy methods (targeted/systematic) for histological outcomes (grade group [GG] ≥2/GG 1 cancer detection and benign biopsies). Benefit-to-harm ratios of >1 suggest a positive net benefit.

Key Findings And Limitations: First-line MRI screening detects twice as many men with GG ≥2 cancer as second-stage MRI screening but has more MRI-negative men (range, 66-89% vs 56-61%). Second-stage MRI significantly reduced biopsy rates (range, 42-79%) compared with systematic biopsy rates in all PSA-positive men. Subsequently, GG ≥2/GG 1 cancer detection ratios increased in MRI-positive men undergoing targeted and systematic biopsies (range, 1.9-6.2) and targeted biopsies alone (range, 1.8-7.0), compared with systematic biopsies alone (range, 0.8-1.4). First-line and second-stage MRI screening allowed biopsy avoidance in three to 55 and two to 15 men, respectively, for each benign diagnosis. All benefit-to-harm ratios showed positive net benefits (>1). Heterogeneity in the study protocols limits generalisability.

Conclusions And Clinical Implications: Targeted biopsies in second-stage MRI screening optimise clinically significant PCa detection, while reducing the number of biopsies. First-line MRI screening requires further assessments of its feasibility. PCa screening quality assurance requires standardised MRI interpretations and biopsy protocols.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2025.05.038DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mri screening
24
second-stage mri
20
systematic biopsies
12
first-line second-stage
12
biopsies range
12
mri
11
screening
10
magnetic resonance
8
prostate cancer
8
systematic review
8

Similar Publications