Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Key learning on the promise and limitations of MRI in prostate cancer screening

  • Invited Review
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

MRI retains its ability to reduce the harm of prostate biopsies by decreasing biopsy rates and the detection of indolent cancers in population-based screening studies aiming to find clinically significant prostate cancers. Limitations of low positive predictive values and high reader variability in diagnostic performance require optimisations in patient selection, imaging protocols, interpretation standards, diagnostic thresholds, and biopsy methods. Improvements in diagnostic accuracy could come about through emerging technologies like risk calculators and polygenic risk scores to select men for MRI. Furthermore, artificial intelligence and workflow optimisations focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway, quality control, and assurance measures will improve MRI variability.

Clinical relevance statement

MRI significantly reduces harm in prostate cancer screening, lowering unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the overdiagnosis of indolent cancers. MRI maintains the effective detection of high-grade cancers, thus improving the overall benefit-to-harm ratio in population-based screenings with or without using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for patient selection.

Key Points

• The use of MRI enables the harm reduction benefits seen in individual early cancer detection to be extended to both risk-stratified and non-stratified prostate cancer screening populations.

• MRI limitations include a low positive predictive value and imperfect reader variability, which require standardising interpretations, biopsy methods, and integration into a quality diagnostic pathway.

• Current evidence is based on one-time point use of MRI in screening; MRI effectiveness in multiple rounds of screening is not well-documented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

GG:

Gleason Grade

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

MRTB:

Magnetic resonance targeted biopsy

PI-RADS:

Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System

PSA:

Prostate-specific antigen

SB:

Systematic biopsy

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71:209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Månsson M et al (2019) A 16-yr follow-up of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 76:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Vickers A, O’Brien F, Montorsi F et al (2023) Current policies on early detection of prostate cancer create overdiagnosis and inequity with minimal benefit. BMJ 381:e071082. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Poppel H, Roobol MJ, Chapple CR et al (2021) Prostate-specific antigen testing as part of a risk-adapted early detection strategy for prostate cancer: European Association of Urology Position and Recommendations for 2021. Eur Urol 80:703–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.07.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eldred-Evans D, Tam H, Sokhi H et al (2020) Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test? Nat Rev Urol 17:526–539. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-020-0356-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Padhani AR, Schoots IG (2023) Prostate cancer screening-stepping forward with MRI. Eur Radiol 33:6670–6676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09673-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L et al (2019) Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naive: the Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study. JAMA Surg 154:811–818. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Klotz L, Chin J, Black PC et al (2021) Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasonography biopsy for biopsy-naive men at risk for prostate cancer: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 7:534–542. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7589

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Eklund M, Jäderling F, Discacciati A et al (2021) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer screening. N Engl J Med 385:908–920. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2100852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eldred-Evans D, Burak P, Connor MJ et al (2021) Population-based prostate cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography: the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study. JAMA Oncol 7:395–402. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7456

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Xie J, Jin C, Liu M et al (2022) MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided targeted biopsy and transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy for diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:880336. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.880336

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Drost F-JH, Osses D, Nieboer D et al (2020) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 77:78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hugosson J, Månsson M, Wallström J et al (2022) Prostate cancer screening with PSA and MRI followed by targeted biopsy only. N Engl J Med 387:2126–2137. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2209454

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Boschheidgen M, Albers P, Schlemmer H-P et al (2023) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer screening at the age of 45 years: results from the first screening round of the PROBASE trial. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.09.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bratt O, Godtman RA, Jiborn T et al (2023) Population-based organised prostate cancer testing: results from the first invitation of 50-year-old Men. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wallström J, Geterud K, Kohestani K et al (2022) Prostate cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging: results from the second round of the Göteborg Prostate Cancer Screening 2 Trial. Eur Urol Oncol 5:54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Eldred-Evans D, Tam H, Sokhi H et al (2023) An evaluation of screening pathways using a combination of magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen: results from the IP1-PROSTAGRAM Study. Eur Urol Oncol 6:295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.03.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Moore CM, Frangou E, McCartan N et al (2023) Prevalence of MRI lesions in men responding to a GP-led invitation for a prostate health check: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Oncol 2:e000057. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2023-000057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Messina E, La Torre G, Pecoraro M et al (2023) Design of a magnetic resonance imaging-based screening program for early diagnosis of prostate cancer: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial-Prostate Cancer Secondary Screening in Sapienza (PROSA). Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-10019-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Nam R, Patel C, Milot L et al (2022) Prostate MRI versus PSA screening for prostate cancer detection (the MVP Study): a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open 12:e059482. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059482

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kohestani K, Månsson M, Arnsrud Godtman R et al (2021) 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. Scand J Urol 55:116–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2021.1881612

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Rannikko A, Leht M, Mirtti T et al (2022) Population-based randomized trial of screening for clinically significant prostate cancer ProScreen: a pilot study. BJU Int 130:193–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15683

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Van Poppel H, Albreht T, Basu P et al (2022) Serum PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer in Europe and globally: past, present and future. Nat Rev Urol 19:562–572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-022-00638-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Woernle A, Englman C, Dickinson L, et al (2023) Picture perfect: the status of image quality in prostate MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.29025

  25. Stabile A, Dell’Oglio P, Soligo M et al (2021) Assessing the clinical value of positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in young men with a suspicion of prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 4:594–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.05.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grivas N, Lardas M, Espinós EL et al (2022) Prostate cancer detection percentages of repeat biopsy in patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (prostate imaging reporting and data system/likert 3–5) and negative initial biopsy. A Mini Systematic Review Eur Urol 82:452–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.07.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tan N, Pollock JR, Margolis DJA, et al (2023) Management of patients with a negative multiparametric prostate MRI examination: AJR expert panel narrative review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1–3. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.23.29969

  28. Nordström T, Discacciati A, Bergman M et al (2021) Prostate cancer screening using a combination of risk-prediction, MRI, and targeted prostate biopsies (STHLM3-MRI): a prospective, population-based, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 22:1240–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00348-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hao S, Discacciati A, Eklund M et al (2022) Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging or standard biopsy based on the STHLM3-MRI Study. JAMA Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5252

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Segal N, Ber Y, Benjaminov O et al (2020) Imaging-based prostate cancer screening among BRCA mutation carriers-results from the first round of screening. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol 31:1545–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.025

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Rickmansworth Road, Northwood, Middlesex, HA6 2RN, UK

    Anwar R. Padhani

  2. Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden

    Rebecka A. Godtman

  3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Ivo G. Schoots

  4. Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Ivo G. Schoots

Authors
  1. Anwar R. Padhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecka A. Godtman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ivo G. Schoots
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anwar R. Padhani.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Anwar R. Padhani.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Not applicable.

Methodology

• invited review

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Padhani, A.R., Godtman, R.A. & Schoots, I.G. Key learning on the promise and limitations of MRI in prostate cancer screening. Eur Radiol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10626-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10626-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation