-
Categories
-
Pharmaceutical Intermediates
-
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
-
Food Additives
- Industrial Coatings
- Agrochemicals
- Dyes and Pigments
- Surfactant
- Flavors and Fragrances
- Chemical Reagents
- Catalyst and Auxiliary
- Natural Products
- Inorganic Chemistry
-
Organic Chemistry
-
Biochemical Engineering
- Analytical Chemistry
-
Cosmetic Ingredient
- Water Treatment Chemical
-
Pharmaceutical Intermediates
Promotion
ECHEMI Mall
Wholesale
Weekly Price
Exhibition
News
-
Trade Service
This article is from the NEJM Journal Watch MRI Evaluation of Men with Elevated Levels of Prostate-Specific Antigen.
Comment on men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels.
Author: Allan S.
Brett, MD in a screening study However, imaging examination reduced the rate of biopsy, but did not reduce the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer
.
For men whose prostate cancer screening shows elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, urologists are increasingly using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide biopsy decisions; MRI can also help target suspicious areas Biopsy
.
In the Swedish trial, about 1,500 men (age range, 50 to 74 years old) with a PSA level ≥3 ng/mL on screening were randomly assigned to receive a regular random 12-needle prostate biopsy or initial MRI
.
In the MRI group, MRI results showed that patients with suspected cancer received routine random biopsy and suspicious site-targeted biopsy
.
The ending is as follows
.
The proportion of patients in the MRI group who received biopsy was lower than that in the conventional biopsy group (36% vs.
73%)
.
In the intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of patients in the MRI group that detected clinically significant cancer (ie Gleason score ≥7) was slightly higher than that in the conventional biopsy group (21% vs.
18%)
.
The proportion of patients in the MRI group that detected no clinically significant cancer (ie Gleason score ≤ 6) was lower than that in the conventional biopsy group (4% vs.
12%); the same was true for the proportion of benign biopsy results (11% vs.
43%)
.
Commenting on the MRI-guided strategy has several advantages: it greatly reduces the proportion of patients undergoing biopsy without reducing the detection rate of clinically significant cancers, and it reduces the proportion of patients diagnosed with non-clinically significant cancers
.
However, the specific data of this study may not have general applicability: the PSA threshold set in the inclusion criteria is low (3 ng/mL), and some patients in the two groups did not follow the randomization results
.
Adding MRI to the PSA screening program may reduce the incidence of overdiagnosis, but it may not resolve the controversy about the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening
.
Eklund M et al.
MRI-targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer screening.
N Engl J Med 2021 Jul 9; [e-pub].
(https://doi.
org/10.
1056/NEJMoa2100852) Related reading NEJM journal The NEJM Journal Watch is published by NEJM Group.
Internationally renowned doctors are invited to comment on important papers in the medical field to help doctors understand and use the latest developments
.
"NEJM Frontiers of Medicine" is translated several times a week, published on the app and official website, and selected 2-3 articles are published on WeChat
.
Copyright information This article was translated, written or commissioned by the "NEJM Frontiers of Medicine" jointly created by the Jiahui Medical Research and Education Group (J-Med) and the "New England Journal of Medicine" (NEJM)
.
The Chinese translation of the full text and the included diagrams are exclusively authorized by the NEJM Group
.
If you need to reprint, please leave a message or contact nejmqianyan@nejmqianyan.
cn
.
Unauthorized translation is an infringement, and the copyright owner reserves the right to pursue legal liabilities
.
Comment on men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels.
Author: Allan S.
Brett, MD in a screening study However, imaging examination reduced the rate of biopsy, but did not reduce the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer
.
For men whose prostate cancer screening shows elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, urologists are increasingly using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide biopsy decisions; MRI can also help target suspicious areas Biopsy
.
In the Swedish trial, about 1,500 men (age range, 50 to 74 years old) with a PSA level ≥3 ng/mL on screening were randomly assigned to receive a regular random 12-needle prostate biopsy or initial MRI
.
In the MRI group, MRI results showed that patients with suspected cancer received routine random biopsy and suspicious site-targeted biopsy
.
The ending is as follows
.
The proportion of patients in the MRI group who received biopsy was lower than that in the conventional biopsy group (36% vs.
73%)
.
In the intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of patients in the MRI group that detected clinically significant cancer (ie Gleason score ≥7) was slightly higher than that in the conventional biopsy group (21% vs.
18%)
.
The proportion of patients in the MRI group that detected no clinically significant cancer (ie Gleason score ≤ 6) was lower than that in the conventional biopsy group (4% vs.
12%); the same was true for the proportion of benign biopsy results (11% vs.
43%)
.
Commenting on the MRI-guided strategy has several advantages: it greatly reduces the proportion of patients undergoing biopsy without reducing the detection rate of clinically significant cancers, and it reduces the proportion of patients diagnosed with non-clinically significant cancers
.
However, the specific data of this study may not have general applicability: the PSA threshold set in the inclusion criteria is low (3 ng/mL), and some patients in the two groups did not follow the randomization results
.
Adding MRI to the PSA screening program may reduce the incidence of overdiagnosis, but it may not resolve the controversy about the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening
.
Eklund M et al.
MRI-targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer screening.
N Engl J Med 2021 Jul 9; [e-pub].
(https://doi.
org/10.
1056/NEJMoa2100852) Related reading NEJM journal The NEJM Journal Watch is published by NEJM Group.
Internationally renowned doctors are invited to comment on important papers in the medical field to help doctors understand and use the latest developments
.
"NEJM Frontiers of Medicine" is translated several times a week, published on the app and official website, and selected 2-3 articles are published on WeChat
.
Copyright information This article was translated, written or commissioned by the "NEJM Frontiers of Medicine" jointly created by the Jiahui Medical Research and Education Group (J-Med) and the "New England Journal of Medicine" (NEJM)
.
The Chinese translation of the full text and the included diagrams are exclusively authorized by the NEJM Group
.
If you need to reprint, please leave a message or contact nejmqianyan@nejmqianyan.
cn
.
Unauthorized translation is an infringement, and the copyright owner reserves the right to pursue legal liabilities
.