PROMIS is funded by the UK Government Department of Health, National Institute of Health Research-Health Technology Assessment Programme, (Project number 09/22/67). This project is also supported and partly funded by UCLH/UCL Biomedical Research Centre and The Royal Marsden and Institute for Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and is coordinated by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at UCL. It is sponsored by University College London (UCL).

No abstract

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 22, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This project was also supported and partially funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London (UCL) Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and UCL and by The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and was co-ordinated by the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (grant code MC_UU_12023/28). It was sponsored by UCL. Funding for the additional collection of blood and urine samples for translational research was provided by Prostate Cancer UK.

word count 300 Manuscript main word count

Early and late MRI performed better than PSA measurements in the detection of residual tumor after focal therapy.

IMPORTANCE Screening 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. OBJECTIVE To compare the performance of PSA testing, MRI, and ultrasonography as screening tests for prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This 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. INTERVENTIONS All 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 MEASURES The 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 Ն3 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. RESULTS A 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 (Ն3 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 RELEVANCE In 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 ...

Background All risk stratification strategies in cancer overlook a spectrum of disease. The Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS) provides a unique opportunity to explore cancers that are overlooked by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Objective To summarise attributes of cancers that are systematically overlooked by mpMRI. Design, setting, and participants PROMIS tested performance of mpMRI and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy, using 5 mm template mapping (TPM) biopsy as the reference standard. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Outcomes were overall and maximum Gleason scores, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD). Cancer attributes were compared between cancers that were overlooked and those that were detected. Results and limitations Of men with cancer, 7% (17/230; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4–12%) had significant disease overlooked by mpMRI according to definition 1 (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 of any length or MCCL ≥ 6 mm of any grade) and 13% (44/331; 95% CI 9.8–17%) according to definition 2 (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length or MCCL ≥ 4 mm). In comparison, TRUS-guided biopsy overlooked 52% (119/230; 95% CI 45–58%) of significant disease by definition 1 and 40% (132/331; 95% CI 35–45%) by definition 2. Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI had significantly lower overall and maximum Gleason scores ( p = 0.0007; p < 0.0001) and shorter MCCL (median difference: 3 mm [5 vs 8 mm], p < 0.0001; 95% CI 1–3) than cancers that were detected. No tumours with overall Gleason score > 3 + 4 (Gleason Grade Groups 3–5; 95% CI 0–6.4%) or maximum Gleason score > 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Groups 4–5; 95% CI 0–8.0%) on TPM biopsy were undetected by mpMRI. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.15 reduced the proportion of men with undetected cancer to 5% (12/230; 95% CI 2.7–8.9%) for definition 1 and 9% (30/331; 95% CI 6.2–13%) for definition 2. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.10 reduced the proportion of men with undetected disease to 3% (6/230; 95% CI 1.0–5.6%) for definition 1 cancer and to 3% (11/331; 95% CI 1.7–5.9%) for definition 2 cancer. Limitations were post hoc analysis and uncertain significance of undetected lesions. Conclusions Overall, a small proportion of cancers are overlooked by mpMRI, with estimates ranging from 4.4% (lower boundary of 95% CI for definition 1) to 17% (upper boundary of 95% CI for definition 2). Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI are of lower grade and shorter length than cancers that are detected. Patient summary Prostate cancers that are undetected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are smaller and less aggressive than those that are detected, and none of the most aggressive cancers are overlooked by MRI.

ImportanceFocal therapy involves treating only the cancerous area within the prostate rather than the whole gland. Comparative effectiveness data for oncological and functional outcomes are lacking. ObjectiveTo evaluate oncological and functional outcomes of focal therapy in comparison to radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically significant, non-metastatic prostate cancer. DesignA 1:1 propensity score matched study, reviewing patients undergoing focal therapy or radical prostatectomy between November 2005-September 2018. SettingProspective multicentre databases for focal therapy (high intensity focused ultrasound and cryotherapy) and radical prostatectomy were analysed for eligibility. ParticipantsPatients with PSA<20ng/ml, Gleason