Prostate cancer screening-stepping forward with MRI

Prostate cancer biomarkers: from early diagnosis to precision treatment

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most prevalent cancer in men. In 2020, approximately 1,414,259 new cases were reported that accounted for 3,75,324 deaths (Sung et al. in CA 71:209-249, 2021). PCa is often asymptomatic at early stages; hence, routine screening and monitoring based on reliable biomarkers is crucial for early detection and assessment of cancer progression. Early diagnosis of disease is key step in reducing PCa-induced mortality. Biomarkers such as PSA have played vital role in reducing recent PCa deaths. Recent research has identified many other biomarkers and also refined PSA-based tests for non-invasive diagnosis of PCa in patients. Despite progress in screening methods, an important issue that influences treatment is heterogeneity of the cancer in different individuals, necessitating personalized treatment. Currently, focus is to identify biomarkers that can accurately diagnose PCa at early stage, indicate the stage of the disease, metastatic nature and chances of survival based on individual patient profile (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Graphical abstract.

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

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.

68Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen-11 PET/CT versus multiparametric MRI in the detection of primary prostate cancer: A systematic review and head-to-head comparative meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two diagnostic methods, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and mpMRI, in detecting primary prostate cancer without limitations on the Gleason score.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review, searching databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until June 2023. Our objective was to identify studies that compared the efficacy of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and mpMRI in detecting primary prostate cancer. To determine heterogeneity, the I2 statistic was used. Meta-regression analysis and leave-one-out sensitivity analysis were conducted to identify potential sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Initially, 1286 publications were found, but after careful evaluation, only 16 studies involving 1227 patients were analyzed thoroughly. The results showed that the 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT method had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.80-0.92) and 0.80 (95 % CI: 0.69-0.89), respectively, for diagnosing prostatic cancer. Similarly, the values for mpMRI were determined as 0.84 (95 % CI: 0.75-0.92) and 0.74 (95 % CI: 0.61-0.86), respectively. There were no significant differences in diagnostic effectiveness observed when comparing two primary prostate cancer methodologies (pooled sensitivity P = 0.62, pooled specificity P = 0.50). Despite this, the funnel plots showed symmetry and the Egger test results (P values > 0.05) suggested there was no publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

After an extensive meta-analysis, it was found that both 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT and mpMRI demonstrate similar diagnostic effectiveness in detecting primary prostate cancer. Future larger prospective studies are warranted to investigate this issue further.