Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 24, 2026

Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Biopsy Data to Guide Sampling Procedures for Prostate Cancer Biobanking
Published on: October 10, 2019
Stockholm3-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Study: Two-Year Follow-up
Thorgerdur Palsdottir1, Chiara Micoli1, Martin Eklund1
1Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden (T.P., C.M., M.E., H.T.V.).
Background:
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer is controversial. An alternative approach, Stockholm3, combines PSA, plasma protein biomarkers, polygenic risk, and clinical factors into a multivariable risk score.
Objective:
To compare detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) using PSA and Stockholm3 in a population-based screening with short-term follow-up.
Design:
Secondary analysis of the baseline round of the prospective STHLM3-MRI (Prostate Cancer Screening Using a Combination of Risk-Prediction, MRI, and Targeted Prostate Biopsies) randomized screening trial in men aged 50 to 74 years who had PSA and Stockholm3 screening. Men with abnormal screening tests (PSA ≥3 ng/mL or Stockholm3 ≥11) were randomly assigned (2:3) to systematic biopsy or magnetic resonance imaging with systematic and targeted biopsies for lesions with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score of 3 or greater. Cancer diagnosed within 2 years was identified through linkage to the Swedish National Cancer Register; cancer after a negative baseline test was classified as false negative. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03377881).
Setting:
Stockholm region, Sweden, 2018 to 2020.
Participants:
Men aged 50 to 74 years who had PSA and Stockholm3 screening.
Intervention:
Prostate-specific antigen and Stockholm3 tests at baseline.
Measurements:
Clinically significant prostate cancer (grade group ≥2) within 2 years of baseline.
Results:
Among 12 670 men, 443 (3.5%) were diagnosed with csPC. Decision curve analysis showed higher net benefit for Stockholm3 versus PSA across a range of decision thresholds for biopsy, indicating fewer unnecessary biopsies and fewer missed csPC cases. Stockholm3 (≥11) had a false-negative rate of 10% (43 of 443) and a false-positive rate of 11% (1289 of 12 227), whereas PSA (≥3 ng/mL) had a false-negative rate of 26% (116 of 443) and a false-positive rate of 10% (1203 of 12 227). Correspondingly, sensitivity was 90% (95% CI, 87% to 93%) for Stockholm3 and 74% (CI, 69% to 78%) for PSA, with similar specificity (89% vs. 90%).
Limitations:
Participation was approximately 25% of invited men; follow-up was limited to 2 years; and the cohort was predominantly Swedish or European, which may limit generalizability.
Conclusion:
In this screening cohort with short-term follow-up, Stockholm3 provided greater clinical net benefit than PSA for detecting csPC, driven by fewer false-negative results, although follow-up was limited to 2 years.
Primary Funding Source:
Swedish Research Council, Swedish Prostate Cancer Society, Stockholm Region, and the Swedish Cancer Society.
Related Concept Videos
Imaging Studies IV: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Imaging Studies II: Positron Emission Tomography and Scintigraphy
Fundamental Principles of PET

