MRI Versus PSA in Prostate Cancer Screening
MVP
A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy of MRI Versus PSA for Prostate Cancer Screening: The MVP Study (MRI vs PSA)
1 other identifier
interventional
1,010
1 country
1
Brief Summary
In this open randomized controlled trial, we seek to study whether prostate cancer screening using multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) improves the detection rate of clinically-significant prostate cancer (defined as Gleason score ≥7 on prostate biopsy) compared with prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The current paradigm of prostate cancer screening relies upon an initial PSA blood test, with subsequent investigations driven by the serum PSA level. This model has proven highly controversial due to the inability of PSA level to discern between indolent and aggressive forms of prostate cancer. As a result, numerous government-sponsored bodies have recommended against PSA screening. Evidence suggests that prostate cancer screening has led to an increased proportion of men being diagnosed with potentially curable prostate cancer. However, due to the inability of the PSA level to accurately distinguish patients with indolent and lethal forms of prostate cancer, it has led to a significant rate of over-diagnosis of indolent disease. Magnetic resonance imaging has been gaining an increasingly large role in the management of patients with clinically-localized prostate cancer including diagnosis in patients with abnormal PSA levels, monitoring of patients on active surveillance and staging prior to definitive interventions. MRI-based prostate cancer risk assessment has been shown to better distinguish between clinically-significant and insignificant tumors than PSA test. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial of MRI-based prostate cancer screening and PSA-based prostate cancer screening is warranted.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P75+ for not_applicable prostate-cancer
Started Jun 2016
Typical duration for not_applicable prostate-cancer
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
June 1, 2016
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
June 10, 2016
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
June 14, 2016
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
June 1, 2020
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
June 1, 2020
CompletedOctober 1, 2019
September 1, 2019
4 years
June 10, 2016
September 27, 2019
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Clinically-significant prostate cancer
Gleason score greater than or equal to 7 on TRUS prostate biopsy
Within 3 years of randomization
Secondary Outcomes (1)
Clinically-insignificant prostate cancer
Within 3 years of randomizations
Study Arms (2)
Multi-parametric MRI
EXPERIMENTALPatients from the general population without history of previous prostate biopsy will be allocated to receive mpMRI in order to evaluate for risk of prostate cancer.
PSA Only
ACTIVE COMPARATORPatients from the general population without history of previous prostate biopsy will be allocated to receive serum PSA testing in order to evaluate for risk of prostate cancer. Patients with a serum PSA level less than 4.0 ng/mL will be managed expectantly with results provided to their primary care physician.
Interventions
Non contrast magnetic resonance imaging using T1/T2 weighting, DWI and ADC will be performed. MRI images will be reviewed by a single uro-radiologist and assessed using the PiRADs standards.
Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing will be performed using a standardized laboratory assay.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- age greater than or equal to 50 years old
- life expectancy greater than or equal to 10 years, according to the clinical judgement of study investigators
You may not qualify if:
- history of previous prostate biopsy
- PSA level measurement within 3 years of recruitment date
- abnormal digital rectal examination of the prostate consistent with prostate cancer
- history of prostate cancer in one or more first-degree relatives diagnosed at less than 50 years of age
- lower urinary tract voiding symptoms (IPSS greater than or equal to 8)
- prior or current use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitor medications (finasteride or dutasteride)
- patient unable to communicate in English in order to give proper informed consent
- claustrophobia or other medical indication which would preclude MRI
- any medical condition which, in the opinion of the investigator, might interfere with the evaluation of the study objectives
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Toronto, Ontario, M4N3M5, Canada
Related Publications (28)
Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E. Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med. 1987 Oct 8;317(15):909-16. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198710083171501.
PMID: 2442609BACKGROUNDEtzioni R, Gulati R, Falcon S, Penson DF. Impact of PSA screening on the incidence of advanced stage prostate cancer in the United States: a surveillance modeling approach. Med Decis Making. 2008 May-Jun;28(3):323-31. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07312719. Epub 2008 Mar 4.
PMID: 18319508BACKGROUNDBarocas DA, Mallin K, Graves AJ, Penson DF, Palis B, Winchester DP, Chang SS. Effect of the USPSTF Grade D Recommendation against Screening for Prostate Cancer on Incident Prostate Cancer Diagnoses in the United States. J Urol. 2015 Dec;194(6):1587-93. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.075. Epub 2015 Jun 15.
PMID: 26087383BACKGROUNDEtzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Szabo A, Falcon S, Wegelin J, DiTommaso D, Karnofski K, Gulati R, Penson DF, Feuer E. Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline. Cancer Causes Control. 2008 Mar;19(2):175-81. doi: 10.1007/s10552-007-9083-8. Epub 2007 Nov 20.
PMID: 18027095BACKGROUNDMoyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul 17;157(2):120-34. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459.
PMID: 22801674BACKGROUNDSchroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Lilja H, Zappa M, Denis LJ, Recker F, Berenguer A, Maattanen L, Bangma CH, Aus G, Villers A, Rebillard X, van der Kwast T, Blijenberg BG, Moss SM, de Koning HJ, Auvinen A; ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1320-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084. Epub 2009 Mar 18.
PMID: 19297566BACKGROUNDAndriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Gelmann EP, Kvale PA, Reding DJ, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, O'Brien B, Clapp JD, Rathmell JM, Riley TL, Hayes RB, Kramer BS, Izmirlian G, Miller AB, Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Gohagan JK, Berg CD; PLCO Project Team. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1310-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810696. Epub 2009 Mar 18.
PMID: 19297565BACKGROUNDGulati R, Tsodikov A, Wever EM, Mariotto AB, Heijnsdijk EA, Katcher J, de Koning HJ, Etzioni R. The impact of PLCO control arm contamination on perceived PSA screening efficacy. Cancer Causes Control. 2012 Jun;23(6):827-35. doi: 10.1007/s10552-012-9951-8. Epub 2012 Apr 10.
PMID: 22488488BACKGROUNDBasch E, Oliver TK, Vickers A, Thompson I, Kantoff P, Parnes H, Loblaw DA, Roth B, Williams J, Nam RK. Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Aug 20;30(24):3020-5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.43.3441. Epub 2012 Jul 16.
PMID: 22802323BACKGROUNDSchroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Maattanen L, Lilja H, Denis LJ, Recker F, Paez A, Bangma CH, Carlsson S, Puliti D, Villers A, Rebillard X, Hakama M, Stenman UH, Kujala P, Taari K, Aus G, Huber A, van der Kwast TH, van Schaik RH, de Koning HJ, Moss SM, Auvinen A; ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014 Dec 6;384(9959):2027-35. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0. Epub 2014 Aug 6.
PMID: 25108889BACKGROUNDSchroder FH, Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Tammela T, Maattanen L, Auvinen A, Kwiatkowski M, Recker F, Roobol MJ. Screening for prostate cancer decreases the risk of developing metastatic disease: findings from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol. 2012 Nov;62(5):745-52. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.068. Epub 2012 Jun 7.
PMID: 22704366BACKGROUNDHugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A, Lodding P, Pihl CG, Stranne J, Holmberg E, Lilja H. Mortality results from the Goteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010 Aug;11(8):725-32. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70146-7. Epub 2010 Jul 2.
PMID: 20598634BACKGROUNDThompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, Minasian LM, Ford LG, Lippman SM, Crawford ED, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA Jr. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004 May 27;350(22):2239-46. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031918.
PMID: 15163773BACKGROUNDZavaski ME, Meyer CP, Sammon JD, Hanske J, Gupta S, Sun M, Trinh QD. Differences in Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Among Urologists and Primary Care Physicians Following the 2012 USPSTF Recommendations. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr;176(4):546-7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7901. No abstract available.
PMID: 26857148BACKGROUNDGulati R, Tsodikov A, Etzioni R, Hunter-Merrill RA, Gore JL, Mariotto AB, Cooperberg MR. Expected population impacts of discontinued prostate-specific antigen screening. Cancer. 2014 Nov 15;120(22):3519-26. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28932. Epub 2014 Jul 25.
PMID: 25065910BACKGROUNDBezzi M, Kressel HY, Allen KS, Schiebler ML, Altman HG, Wein AJ, Pollack HM. Prostatic carcinoma: staging with MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology. 1988 Nov;169(2):339-46. doi: 10.1148/radiology.169.2.3174982.
PMID: 3174982BACKGROUNDRecabal P, Ehdaie B. The role of MRI in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2015 Nov;25(6):504-9. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000221.
PMID: 26372037BACKGROUNDHenderson DR, de Souza NM, Thomas K, Riches SF, Morgan VA, Sohaib SA, Dearnaley DP, Parker CC, van As NJ. Nine-year Follow-up for a Study of Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Prospective Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort. Eur Urol. 2016 Jun;69(6):1028-33. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.010. Epub 2015 Oct 21.
PMID: 26482887BACKGROUNDVourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram N, Nix J, Volkin D, Hoang A, Turkbey B, Gupta GN, Kruecker J, Linehan WM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol. 2012 Dec;188(6):2152-2157. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025. Epub 2012 Oct 18.
PMID: 23083875BACKGROUNDMeng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Wysock JS, Bjurlin MA, Marshall S, Deng FM, Zhou M, Melamed J, Huang WC, Lepor H, Taneja SS. Relationship Between Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Biopsy Indication, and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):512-7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.005. Epub 2015 Jun 22.
PMID: 26112001BACKGROUNDAbd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed HU, Arya M, Anastasiadis E, Charman SC, Freeman A, Emberton M. Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014 Mar;17(1):40-6. doi: 10.1038/pcan.2013.43. Epub 2013 Oct 15.
PMID: 24126797BACKGROUNDWeaver JK, Kim EH, Vetter JM, Fowler KJ, Siegel CL, Andriole GL. Presence of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Suspicious Lesion Predicts Gleason 7 or Greater Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Patients. Urology. 2016 Feb;88:119-24. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.10.023. Epub 2015 Nov 3.
PMID: 26545849BACKGROUNDTurkbey B, Bernardo M, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. MRI of localized prostate cancer: coming of age in the PSA era. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012 Jan-Feb;18(1):34-45. doi: 10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.4478-11.1. Epub 2011 Sep 16.
PMID: 21922459BACKGROUNDBarentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y. Epub 2012 Feb 10.
PMID: 22322308BACKGROUNDNam RK, Wallis CJ, Stojcic-Bendavid J, Milot L, Sherman C, Sugar L, Haider MA. A Pilot Study to Evaluate the Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Screening in the General Population. J Urol. 2016 Aug;196(2):361-6. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.114. Epub 2016 Feb 13.
PMID: 26880413BACKGROUNDPuech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, Bitker MO, Leroy X, Mege-Lechevallier F, Comperat E, Ouzzane A, Lemaitre L. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013 Aug;268(2):461-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13121501. Epub 2013 Apr 11.
PMID: 23579051BACKGROUNDChou R, Dana T, Bougatsos C, Fu R, Blazina I, Gleitsmann K, Rugge JB. Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review to Update the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011 Oct. Report No.: 12-05161-EF-1. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK82315/
PMID: 22171386BACKGROUNDNam R, Patel C, Milot L, Hird A, Wallis C, Macinnis P, Singh M, Emmenegger U, Sherman C, Haider MA. Prostate MRI versus PSA screening for prostate cancer detection (the MVP Study): a randomised clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 8;12(11):e059482. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059482.
PMID: 36351725DERIVED
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Robert Nam, MD
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Central Study Contacts
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- NONE
- Purpose
- SCREENING
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Professor of Surgery
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
June 10, 2016
First Posted
June 14, 2016
Study Start
June 1, 2016
Primary Completion
June 1, 2020
Study Completion
June 1, 2020
Last Updated
October 1, 2019
Record last verified: 2019-09