Prostate Cancer Screening with PSA and MRI Followed by Targeted Biopsy Only.

BACKGROUND: Screening for prostate cancer is burdened by a high rate of overdiagnosis. The most appropriate algorithm for population-based screening is unknown. METHODS: We invited 37,887 men who were 50 to 60 years of age to undergo regular prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. Participants with a PSA level of 3 ng per milliliter or higher underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate; one third of the participants were randomly assigned to a reference group that underwent systematic biopsy as well as targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions shown on MRI. The remaining participants were assigned to the experimental group and underwent MRI-targeted biopsy only. The primary outcome was clinically insignificant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score of 3+3. The secondary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as a Gleason score of at least 3+4. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the men who were invited to undergo screening, 17,980 (47%) participated in the trial. A total of 66 of the 11,986 participants in the experimental group (0.6%) received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, as compared with 72 of 5994 participants (1.2%) in the reference group, a difference of -0.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.0 to -0.4; relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.64; P<0.001). The relative risk of clinically significant prostate cancer in the experimental group as compared with the reference group was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.1). Clinically significant cancer that was detected only by systematic biopsy was diagnosed in 10 participants in the reference group; all cases were of intermediate risk and involved mainly low-volume disease that was managed with active surveillance. Serious adverse events were rare (<0.1%) in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The avoidance of systematic biopsy in favor of MRI-directed targeted biopsy for screening and early detection in persons with elevated PSA levels reduced the risk of overdiagnosis by half at the cost of delaying detection of intermediate-risk tumors in a small proportion of patients. (Funded by Karin and Christer Johansson's Foundation and others; GÖTEBORG-2 ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN94604465.).

Prostate Cancer Screening with Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Results from the Second Round of the Göteborg Prostate Cancer Screening 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Göteborg 2 prostate cancer (PC) screening (G2) trial evaluates screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) followed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in case of elevated PSA levels. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of using a 2-yr interval in men who were previously screened positive with PSA but had negative MRI or positive MRI with a negative biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 61 201 men aged 50-60 yr were randomized and 38 366 were invited for screening (years 2015-2020). Men with positive MRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3) were scheduled for targeted biopsies. Men with negative MRI or negative biopsies were reinvited after 2 yr. Round 1 and 2 MRI scans (PI-RADS ≥3) of men not diagnosed with PC in round 1 were re-read and classified according to Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) by two radiologists. Interval PCs (detected outside the program before invitation to round 2) were identified by linking to the Regional PC Registry. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Tabulation of overall detection of PC was done. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between October 2017 and June 2020, 474 men with round 1 elevated PSA and MRI underwent a second screening. Of those, 19% had nonelevated PSA in round 2 and were not examined further. Of the remaining 376 men, 89% had negative MRI. Targeted biopsies yielded 14 PCs: nine grade group (GG) 1 and five GG 2-3. In men with PI-RADS ≥3 and PC diagnosed in round 2, only two (GG 1) progressed according to the PRECISE criteria and the remainder were stable. Ten interval PCs were diagnosed: seven GG 1, one GG 2, and two GG 5. The two GG 5 PCs were PI-RADS 4 and 5 with negative round 1 biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: A 2-yr interval seems to be safe in men with negative MRI, while men with PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions with negative biopsies should have a closer follow-up. PATIENT SUMMARY: In prostate cancer screening, a 2-yr follow-up seems to be safe if magnetic resonance imaging did not show highly suspicious findings.

Excellent outcome following emergency deceased donor ABO-incompatible liver transplantation using rituximab and antigen specific immunoadsorption.

BACKGROUND: The acceptance of ABO-incompatible (ABOi) liver grafts will expand the donor pool for a patient in urgent need for a liver transplantation (LT). Here we report our results with emergency ABOi DD (deceased donor) LT using rituximab and antigen specific immunoadsorption. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 2009 to 2019 we performed 20 ABOi DD LTs (adults n = 17, children n = 3) for patients in urgent need for a LT. Immunosuppression consisted of rituximab (n = 20) and basiliximab (n = 15) or anti-thymocyte globuline (n = 4), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG; n = 6), tacrolimus, prednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil. Fifteen patients were treated with IA (n = 14) or both IA and plasmapheresis (PP; n = 1) pre-transplant and 18 patients were treated with IA (n = 15) or both IA and PP (n = 3) post-transplant. The median pre-transplant MELD- score was 40 (range 18-40). Patient and graft survival and complications were compared to a 1:4 case matched control group of ABO-identical or compatible (ABOid/c) DDLT. RESULTS: The 1-, 3- and 5-year patient and graft survival rates were 85, 85 and 78% for the ABOi recipients and not significantly different compared to ABOid/c controls. Only one ABOi patient developed antibody-mediated rejection. CONCLUSION: Patient and graft survival after emergency ABOi DDLT using rituximab and immunoadorption was equal to ABOid/DDLT. ABOi DD LT was a successful approach to expand the donor pool for patients in urgent need for a liver graft.

Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Göteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The PIRADS Steering Committee has called for "higher quality data before making evidence-based recommendations on MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic work up," however, recognizing biparametric (bp) MRI as a reasonable option in a low-risk setting such as screening. With bpMRI, more men can undergo MRI at a lower cost and they can be spared the invasiveness of intravenous access. The aim of this study was to assess cancer detection in bpMRI vs mpMRI in sequential screening for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Within the ongoing Göteborg PCa screening 2 trial, we assessed cancer detection in 551 consecutive participants undergoing prostate MRI. In the same session, readers first assessed bpMRI and then mpMRI. Four targeted biopsies were performed for lesions scored PIRADS 3-5 with bpMRI and/or mpMRI. RESULTS: Cancer was detected in 84/551 cases (15.2%; 95% CI: 12.4-18.4) with mpMRI and in 83/551 cases (15.1%; 95% CI: 12.3-18.2%) with bpMRI. The relative risk (RR) for cancer detection with bpMRI compared to mpMRI was 0.99 (95% one-sided CI: > 94.8); bpMRI was non-inferior to mpMRI (10% non-inferiority margin). bpMRI resulted in fewer false positives, 45/128 (35.2%), compared to mpMRI, 52/136 (38.2%), RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.84-0.98. Of 8 lesions scored positive only with mpMRI, 7 were false positives. The PPV for MRI and targeted biopsy was 83/128 (64.8%) for bpMRI and 84/136 (61.8%) for mpMRI, RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10. CONCLUSIONS: In a PSA-screened population, bpMRI was non-inferior to mpMRI for cancer detection and resulted in fewer false positives. KEY POINTS: • In screening for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI, biparametric MRI allows radiologists to detect an almost similar number of prostate cancers and score fewer false positive lesions compared to multiparametric MRI. • In a screening program, high sensitivity should be weighed against cost and risks for healthy men; a large number of men can be saved the exposure of gadolinium contrast medium by adopting biparametric MRI and at the same time allowing for a higher turnover in the MRI room.

Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study Within the Göteborg Randomised Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and targeted biopsies (TB) have shown potential to more accurately detect significant prostate cancer compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and systematic biopsies (SB). OBJECTIVE: To compare sequential screening (PSA+MRI) with conventional PSA screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Of 384 attendees in the 10th screening round of the Göteborg randomised screening trial, 124 men, median age 69.5 yr, had a PSA of ≥ 1.8 ng/ml and underwent a prebiopsy MRI. Men with suspicious lesions on MRI and/or PSA ≥ 3.0ng/ml were referred for biopsy. SB was performed blinded to MRI results and TB was performed in men with tumour-suspicious findings on MRI. Three screening strategies were compared (PSA ≥ 3.0+SB; PSA ≥ 3.0+MRI+TB and PSA ≥ 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 prostate cancer were detected, of which 20 were diagnosed in biopsy-naïve men. Both PSA ≥ 3.0+MRI and PSA ≥ 1.8+MRI significantly increased specificity compared with PSA ≥ 3.0+SB (0.92 and 0.79 vs 0.52; p<0.002 for both), while sensitivity was significantly higher for PSA ≥ 1.8+MRI compared with PSA ≥ 3.0+MRI (0.73 vs 0.46, p=0.008). The detection rate of significant cancer was higher with PSA ≥ 1.8+MRI compared with PSA ≥ 3.0+SB (5.9% vs 4.0%), while the detection rate of insignificant cancer was lowered by PSA ≥ 3.0+MRI (0.3% vs 1.2%). The primary limitation of this study is the small sample of men. CONCLUSION: A screening strategy with a lowered PSA cut-off followed by TB in MRI-positive men seems to increase the detection of significant cancers while improving specificity. If replicated, these results may contribute to a paradigm shift in future screening. PATIENT SUMMARY: Major concerns in prostate-specific antigen screening are overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis. We evaluated whether prostate magnetic resonance imaging could improve the balance of benefits to harm in prostate cancer screening screening, and we found a promising potential of using magnetic resonance imaging in addition to prostate-specific antigen.