Prostate Cancer Screening With PSA, Kallikrein Panel, and MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has potential to reduce prostate cancer mortality but frequently detects prostate cancer that is not clinically important. Objective: To describe rates of low-grade (grade group 1) and high-grade (grade groups 2-5) prostate cancer identified among men invited to participate in a prostate cancer screening protocol consisting of a PSA test, a 4-kallikrein panel, and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ProScreen trial is a clinical trial conducted in Helsinki and Tampere, Finland, that randomized 61 193 men aged 50 through 63 years who were free of prostate cancer in a 1:3 ratio to either be invited or not be invited to undergo screening for prostate cancer between February 2018 and July 2020. Interventions: Participating men randomized to the intervention underwent PSA testing. Those with a PSA level of 3.0 ng/mL or higher underwent additional testing for high-grade prostate cancer with a 4-kallikrein panel risk score. Those with a kallikrein panel score of 7.5% or higher underwent an MRI of the prostate gland, followed by targeted biopsies for those with abnormal prostate gland MRI findings. Final data collection occurred through June 31, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: In descriptive exploratory analyses, the cumulative incidence of low-grade and high-grade prostate cancer after the first screening round were compared between the group invited to undergo prostate cancer screening and the control group. Results: Of 60 745 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 57.2 [4.0] years), 15 201 were randomized to be invited and 45 544 were randomized not to be invited to undergo prostate cancer screening. Of 15 201 eligible males invited to undergo screening, 7744 (51%) participated. Among them, 32 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.41%) and 128 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.65%) were detected, with 1 cancer grade group result missing. Among the 7457 invited men (49%) who refused participation, 7 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.1%) and 44 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.6%) were detected, with 7 cancer grade groups missing. For the entire invited screening group, 39 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.26%) and 172 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 1.13%) were detected. During a median follow-up of 3.2 years, in the group not invited to undergo screening, 65 low-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.14%) and 282 high-grade prostate cancers (cumulative incidence, 0.62%) were detected. The risk difference for the entire group randomized to the screening invitation vs the control group was 0.11% (95% CI, 0.03%-0.20%) for low-grade and 0.51% (95% CI, 0.33%-0.70%) for high-grade cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: In this preliminary descriptive report from an ongoing randomized clinical trial, 1 additional high-grade cancer per 196 men and 1 low-grade cancer per 909 men were detected among those randomized to be invited to undergo a single prostate cancer screening intervention compared with those not invited to undergo screening. These preliminary findings from a single round of screening should be interpreted cautiously, pending results of the study's primary mortality outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03423303.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".