BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and targeted biopsies (TB) have shown potential to more accurately detect significant @entity263 compared with @entity1486 and systematic biopsies (SB). OBJECTIVE: To compare sequential screening ( @entity1486 +MRI) with conventional @entity1486 screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND @entity1 : Of 384 attendees in the 10th screening round of the G  teborg randomised screening trial, 124 @entity1 , median age 69.5 yr, had a @entity1486 of >=  1.8 ng/ml and underwent a prebiopsy MRI. @entity1 with suspicious lesions on MRI and/or @entity1486 >=  3.0ng/ml were referred for biopsy. SB was performed blinded to MRI results and TB was performed in @entity1 with @entity5 -suspicious findings on MRI. Three screening strategies were compared ( @entity1486 >=  3.0+SB; @entity1486 >=  3.0+MRI+TB and @entity1486 >=  1.8+MRI+TB). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated per screening strategy and compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 28 cases of @entity263 were detected, of which 20 were diagnosed in biopsy-na  ve @entity1 . Both @entity1486 >=  3.0+MRI and @entity1486 >=  1.8+MRI significantly increased specificity compared with @entity1486 >=  3.0+SB (0.92 and 0.79 vs 0.52; p<0.002 for both), while sensitivity was significantly higher for @entity1486 >=  1.8+MRI compared with @entity1486 >=  3.0+MRI (0.73 vs 0.46, p=0.008). The detection rate of significant @entity5 was higher with @entity1486 >=  1.8+MRI compared with @entity1486 >=  3.0+SB (5.9% vs 4.0%), while the detection rate of insignificant @entity5 was lowered by @entity1486 >=  3.0+MRI (0.3% vs 1.2%). The primary limitation of this study is the small sample of @entity1 . CONCLUSION: A screening strategy with a lowered @entity1486 cut-off followed by TB in MRI-positive @entity1 seems to increase the detection of significant @entity5 while improving specificity. If replicated, these results may contribute to a paradigm shift in future screening. @entity1 SUMMARY: Major concerns in @entity1486 screening are overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis. We evaluated whether prostate magnetic resonance imaging could improve the balance of benefits to harm in @entity263 screening screening, and we found a promising potential of using magnetic resonance imaging in addition to @entity1486 .

Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in XXXX Screening: A Pilot Study Within the G  teborg Randomised Screening Trial.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Men', 'PARTICIPANTS', 'PATIENT', 'men'] @entity263 :: ('MESH:D011471', 'Disease') :: ['prostate cancer'] @entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumour', 'cancers', 'cancer'] @entity1486 :: ('354', 'Gene') :: ['prostate-specific antigen', 'prostate-specific antigen (PSA)', 'PSA']
@entity263 :: (MESH:D011471,Disease) :: ['Prostate Cancer']
