ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study: protocol for a single-centre feasibility study inviting men for prostate cancer screening using MRI.

INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of the ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is to explore the uptake of an invitation to prostate cancer screening using MRI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is a prospective single-centre feasibility study. Eligible men aged 50-75 years with no prior prostate cancer diagnosis or treatment will be identified through general practitioner practices and randomly selected for invitation. Those invited will be offered an MRI scan and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. The screening MRI scan consists of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and research-specific sequences, without the use of intravenous contrast agents. Men who screen positive on either MRI or PSA density will be recommended to have standard of care (National Health Service) tests for prostate cancer assessment, which includes multiparametric MRI. The study will assess the acceptability of an MRI-based prostate screening assessment and the prevalence of cancer detected in MRI-screened men. Summary statistics will be used to explore baseline characteristics in relation to acceptance rates and prevalence of cancer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening is a single-site screening study to assess the feasibility of MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer. Ethical approval was granted by London-Stanmore Research Ethics Committee Heath Research Authority (reference 19/LO/1129). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals after completion of data analysis and used to inform the design of a multicentre screening study in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04063566).

Update from the ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study NCT04063566: Inviting Men for Prostate Cancer Screening Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

ReIMAGINE Screening is a single-centre study assessing the feasibility of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a screening tool for prostate cancer. The study outcomes will take us a step towards more accurate and less harmful prostate cancer screening.

Mortality from pulmonary embolism is decreasing in hospital patients.

OBJECTIVES: Pulmonary embolism is believed to be a common cause of death of hospital inpatients. The aims of this study were to estimate the number of deaths caused by pulmonary embolism and the potential to reduce this by the use of caval filters according to accepted indications. DESIGN: Review of autopsy reports and death notification records from 2007 and 2008. When pulmonary embolism was given as cause of death (in the autopsy report or in section 1 a-c or part 2 of the Medical Certificate of the Cause of Death), hospital records were reviewed for evidence of pre-mortem diagnosis of pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and for evidence of accepted indications for caval filter placement. SETTING: Large UK teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Hospital inpatients whose deaths were attributed to pulmonary embolism. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of deaths adjudged at autopsy to be due to pulmonary embolism; evidence of pre-mortem diagnosis of DVT or pulmonary embolism; total number of hospital admission and deaths. RESULTS: From a total of 186,517 adult inpatient admissions there were 2583 (1.4%) adult inpatient deaths of which 696 (27%) underwent autopsy. Of those undergoing autopsy, 14 (2.0%, 95% CI 1.2-3.3%) deaths were caused by pulmonary embolism. Pulmonary embolism was recorded as a cause of death in a further 12 (0.7%) of 1773 patients who did not undergo autopsy. Of these, five had a pre-mortem diagnosis of DVT or pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of deaths caused by pulmonary embolism appears to be considerably lower than the widely published rate, and of this small number, few have a pre-mortem diagnosis of DVT or pulmonary embolism. There is little scope for further reduction of pulmonary embolism mortality through use of caval filters according to guidelines. Current policy on pulmonary embolism risk prevention appears to be based on an over-estimate of the level of risk.