The study advocates mp-MRI with specific training. Is that what your experience is based on?
This was a cohort trial with both tests performed on the same patients with elevated PSA so it has very good comparative power. The results show that mp-MRI was far more accurate as a pre-diagnostic than biopsy. The biopsy was better in specificity but not as a screening tool. As a result, the mp-MRI is stated to be a better screening tool and is able to reduce the percentage of biopsies which are needed. Since biopsy can have side effects, that benefit is solidly there.
Have you read the report and disagree with my summary here?
I have read the newspaper report but not the journal report (I'll have to wait for access at my hospital.)
PSA is a crappy test, so having better comparative power is the medical equivalent of high jumping a pancake. I would refer you to the Wilson criteria for screening tests:
The Wilson criteria for screening emphasise the important features of any screening program, as follows:
1. the condition should be an important health problem
2. the natural history of the condition should be understood
3. there should be a recognisable latent or early symptomatic stage
4. there should be a test that is easy to perform and interpret, acceptable, accurate, reliable, sensitive and specific
5. there should be an accepted treatment recognised for the disease
6. treatment should be more effective if started early
7. there should be a policy on who should be treated
8. diagnosis and treatment should be cost-effective
9. case-finding should be a continuous process
Using MRI for prostate carcinoma screening fails most of these criteria.