Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study

Brown, Louise Clare; Ahmed, Hashim U; Faria, Rita; El-Shater Bosaily, Ahmed; Gabe, Rhian; Kaplan, Richard S; Parmar, Mahesh; Collaco-Moraes, Yolanda; Ward, Katie; Hindley, Richard Graham; Freeman, Alex; Kirkham, Alexander; Oldroyd, Robert; Parker, Chris; Bott, Simon; Burns-Cox, Nick; Dudderidge, Tim; Ghei, Maneesh; Henderson, Alastair; Persad, Rajendra; Rosario, Derek J; Shergill, Iqbal; Winkler, Mathias; Soares, Marta; Spackman, Eldon; Sculpher, Mark; Emberton, Mark

doi:10.3310/hta22390

Graphic version of this page | Change how these pages look

Journals Library

NHS NIHR - National Institute for Health Research

Journals

Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Home >> Journals >> Health Technology Assessment >> Page Not Found

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Home >> Journals >> Health Technology Assessment >> Volume {{metadata.Volume}} >> Issue {{metadata.Issue}}
Extended Research Article
i

Toolkit

View Award

Adding multiparametric MRI as an initial test prior to prostate biopsy can reduce the proportion of men having unnecessary biopsies and improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Detailed Author information
Detailed Author information

Louise Clare Brown ¹, Hashim U Ahmed ^2,^3,^*, Rita Faria ⁴, Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily ^2,³, Rhian Gabe ⁵, Richard S Kaplan ¹, Mahesh Parmar ¹, Yolanda Collaco-Moraes ¹, Katie Ward ¹, Richard Graham Hindley ⁶, Alex Freeman ⁷, Alexander Kirkham ⁸, Robert Oldroyd ⁹, Chris Parker ¹⁰, Simon Bott ¹¹, Nick Burns-Cox ¹², Tim Dudderidge ¹³, Maneesh Ghei ¹⁴, Alastair Henderson ¹⁵, Rajendra Persad ¹⁶, Derek J Rosario ¹⁷, Iqbal Shergill ¹⁸, Mathias Winkler ¹⁹, Marta Soares ⁴, Eldon Spackman ⁴, Mark Sculpher ⁴, Mark Emberton ^2,³

¹ Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
² Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
³ Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
⁴ Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK
⁵ Hull York Medical School and Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
⁶ Department of Urology, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
⁷ Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
⁸ Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
⁹ Public and patient representative, Nottingham, UK
¹⁰ Department of Academic Urology, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK
¹¹ Frimley Park Hospital, Frimley, UK
¹² Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton, UK
¹³ Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
¹⁴ Department of Urology, Whittington Hospital, London, UK
¹⁵ Maidstone Hospital, Maidstone, UK
¹⁶ Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
¹⁷ Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
¹⁸ Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Wrexham, UK
¹⁹ Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK
^* Corresponding author Email: hashim.ahmed@imperial.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

[Image - Crossmark status check]

Report Content

Full Report
Abstract
Plain English Summary
Plain Language Summary
Scientific Summary

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors. Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Enter response message*
Name (title, first name, last name)*
Occupation / Job title*
Affiliation / Employer*
Email*
Other authors
For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas
Statement of competing interestsWe believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.
If yes, please provide details below
Enter response title*
Enter CAPTCHA What is nine minus one?*

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document