Abstract
We thank the authors for their kind remarks on our paper. 1 Kim E.H. Andriole G.L. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Recommendations for prostate cancer screening [Editorial Comment]. Urology. 2016; Google Scholar Perhaps the only substantive disagreement concerns the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The view expressed in our paper was that although promising, the data are simply not sufficient to include MRI in our recommendations. The evidence presented in the editorial does not change our view. The authors cite one small study (n = 100) in which MRI was found to be predictive in one rather overfit statistical model (7 variables to predict 24 events), but not in another. The second study included slightly more patients (n = 223), and did have promising results. In comparison, the biomarkers that the authors mention, such as the Prostate Health Index and the 4kScore, have been validated in numerous studies including thousands of patients.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
