The benefit of prostate cancer screening is counterbalanced by the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The use of a multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) test after a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test followed by magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy (MRIGB) may reduce these harms. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of mpMRI and MRIGB vs the regular screening pathway in a population-based prostate cancer screening setting. A micro-simulation model was used to predict the effects of regular PSA screening (men with elevated PSA followed by TRUSGB) and MRI based screening (men with elevated PSA followed by mpMRI and MRIGB). We predicted reduction of overdiagnosis, harm-benefit ratio (overdiagnosis per cancer death averted), reduction in number of biopsies, detection of clinically significant cancer, prostate cancer death averted, life-years gained (LYG), and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for both strategies. A univariate sensitivity analysis and threshold analysis were performed to assess uncertainty around the test sensitivity parameters used in the MRI strategy.In the MRI pathway, we predicted a 43% reduction in the risk of overdiagnosis, compared to the regular pathway. Similarly a lower harm-benefit ratio (overdiagnosis per cancer death averted) was predicted for this strategy compared to the regular screening pathway (1.0 vs 1.8 respectively). Prostate cancer mortality reduction, LY and QALYs gained were also slightly increased in the MRI pathway than the regular screening pathway. Furthermore, 30% of men with a positive PSA test could avoid a biopsy as compared to the regular screening pathway. Compared to regular PSA screening, the use of mpMRI as a triage test followed by MRIGB can substantially reduce the risk of overdiagnosis and improve the harm-benefit balance, while maximizing prostate cancer mortality reduction and QALYs gained.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This publication was made possible by Grant Number 1U01CA199338 from the National Cancer Institute as part of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute.
© 2021, The Author(s).