Prostate cancer and solid organ transplantation: patient management and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the management and outcomes of individuals diagnosed with prostate cancer either before or after organ transplantation, as the impact of organ transplantation and associated immunosuppression on the incidence, progression, and mortality of prostate cancer remains an area of substantial clinical interest and uncertainty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients from two tertiary care centres who had solid organ transplantation and were diagnosed with prostate cancer before or after organ transplantation. Data collected included demographics and clinical information. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 110 patients with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at prostate cancer diagnosis of 62 (56.6-67.2) years and a median (IQR) age at transplantation of 58.6 (52.7-65.3) years. Renal transplantation was the most common (54%). The median (IQR) prostate-specific antigen concentration at prostate cancer diagnosis was 6.2 (4.5-10) ng/mL, and the distribution of American Urological Association risk groups was: low risk, 36%; intermediate risk, 50%; and high risk, 14%. In all, 45 (41%) patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer prior to transplantation. Management included radical prostatectomy (RP; 62%), prostate radiotherapy (RT; 13%), and active surveillance (AS; 18%). During a median (IQR) follow-up of 5.8 (2.5-10) years from prostate cancer diagnosis, one (2%) patient developed metastatic disease. In all, 65 (59%) patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer subsequent to organ transplantation. Management included AS (29%), RT (45%), and RP (15%). During a median (IQR) follow-up of 5.3 (1-8.4) years, three patients (5%) developed metastatic disease. There were no deaths from prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of localised prostate cancer should not preclude solid organ transplantation, and the presence of a transplant does not appear to substantially impact risk of prostate cancer progression.

When is prostate cancer really cancer?

Prostate cancer (PC) is a major cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with far more diagnoses than deaths annually. Recent discussions have challenged whether Grade Group 1 (GG1) PC should be labeled "cancer" due to its indolent nature. To address this question, an international symposium convened stakeholders from various fields. We summarize key discussion points: autopsy studies reveal GG1 is so common in aging males as to be perhaps a normal aspect of aging. Pure GG1 has no capacity to metastasize. Modern diagnostic pathways focus on detecting higher-grade disease, explicitly omitting biopsy if GG 2 or higher is not suspected, so GG1 has effectively become an "incidentaloma." Recent spatial transcriptomics of prostate sections identifies a continuum of genomic changes-including alterations characteristic of malignancy in histologically normal regions, so the designation of cancer based entirely on conventional pathology findings increasingly seems arbitrary at least to an extent. Pathologists discussed heterogeneity and diagnostic challenges, suggesting "acinar neoplasm" as one possible alternative label. GG1 should not be considered "normal," and absolutely requires ongoing active surveillance; whether patients would adhere to surveillance absent a cancer diagnosis is unknown. Patient perspectives highlighted the adverse effects of overtreatment and the burden of a cancer diagnosis. The anticipated impact on screening and treatment varies across health-care systems, but many believe public health would on balance greatly improve if GG1-along with lesions in other organs with no capacity to cause symptoms or threaten life-were labeled something other than "cancer." Ultimately, our goal is to reduce PC mortality while minimizing harms associated with both overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Quantitative Multi-Parametric MRI of the Prostate Reveals Racial Differences.

Purpose: This study investigates whether quantitative MRI and histology of the prostate reveal differences between races, specifically African Americans (AAs) and Caucasian Americans (CAs), that can affect diagnosis. Materials and Methods: Patients (98 CAs, 47 AAs) with known or suspected prostate cancer (PCa) underwent 3T MRI (T2W, DWI, and DCE-MRI) prior to biopsy or prostatectomy. Quantitative mpMRI metrics: ADC, T2, and DCE empirical mathematical model parameters were calculated. Results: AAs had a greater percentage of higher Gleason-grade lesions compared to CAs. There were no significant differences in the quantitative ADC and T2 values between AAs and CAs. The cancer signal enhancement rate (α) on DCE-MRI was significantly higher for AAs compared to CAs (AAs: 13.3 ± 9.3 vs. CAs: 6.1 ± 4.7 s-1, p < 0.001). The DCE signal washout rate (ß) was significantly lower in benign tissue of AAs (AAs: 0.01 ± 0.09 s-1 vs. CAs: 0.07 ± 0.07 s-1, p < 0.001) and significantly elevated in cancer tissue in AAs (AAs: 0.12 ± 0.07 s-1 vs. CAs: 0.07 ± 0.08 s-1, p = 0.02). DCE significantly improves the differentiation of PCa from benign in AAs (α: 52%, ß: 62% more effective in AAs compared to CAs). Histologic analysis showed cancers have a greater proportion (p = 0.04) of epithelium (50.9 ± 12.3 vs. 44.7 ± 12.8%) and lower lumen (10.5 ± 6.9 vs. 16.2 ± 6.8%) in CAs compared to AAs. Conclusions: This study shows that AAs have different quantitative DCE-MRI values for benign prostate and prostate cancer and different histologic makeup in PCa compared to CAs. Quantitative DCE-MRI can significantly improve the performance of MRI for PCa diagnosis in African Americans but is much less effective for Caucasian Americans.

Stockholm3 in a Multiethnic Cohort for Prostate Cancer Detection (SEPTA): A Prospective Multicentered Trial.

PURPOSE: Asian, Black, and Hispanic men are underrepresented in prostate cancer (PCa) clinical trials. Few novel prostate cancer biomarkers have been validated in diverse cohorts. We aimed to determine if Stockholm3 can improve prostate cancer detection in a diverse cohort. METHODS: An observational prospective multicentered (17 sites) clinical trial (2019-2023), supplemented by prospectively recruited participants (2008-2020) in a urology clinic setting included men with suspicion of PCa and underwent prostate biopsy. Before biopsy, sample was collected for measurement of the Stockholm3 risk score. Parameters include prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, KLK2, GDF15, PSP94, germline risk (single-nucleotide polymorphisms), age, family history, and previous negative biopsy. The primary endpoint was detection of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade ≥2 cancer (clinically significant PCa, csPC). The two primary aims were to (1) demonstrate noninferior sensitivity (0.8 lower bound 95% CI noninferiority margin) in detecting csPC using Stockholm3 compared with PSA (relative sensitivity) and (2) demonstrate superior specificity by reducing biopsies with benign results or low-grade cancers (relative specificity). RESULTS: A total of 2,129 biopsied participants were included: Asian (16%, 350), Black or African American (Black; 24%, 505), Hispanic or Latino and White (Hispanic; 14%, 305), and non-Hispanic or non-Latino and White (White; 46%, 969). Overall, Stockholm3 showed noninferior sensitivity compared with PSA ≥4 ng/mL (relative sensitivity: 0.95 [95% CI, 0.92 to 0.99]) and nearly three times higher specificity (relative specificity: 2.91 [95% CI, 2.63 to 3.22]). Results were consistent across racial and ethnic subgroups: noninferior sensitivity (0.91-0.98) and superior specificity (2.51-4.70). Compared with PSA, Stockholm3 could reduce benign and ISUP 1 biopsies by 45% overall and between 42% and 52% across racial and ethnic subgroups. CONCLUSION: In a substantially diverse population, Stockholm3 significantly reduces unnecessary prostate biopsies while maintaining a similar sensitivity to PSA in detecting csPC.

Survival outcomes and molecular drivers of testicular cancer in hispanic men.

OBJECTIVE: To examine survival outcomes and molecular drivers in testis cancer among Hispanic men using a large national sample and molecular database. METHODS: We reviewed the SEER registry for testicular cancer from 2000 to 2020. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the relationship between race/ethnicity and cancer-specific survival (CSS) by tumor type (seminoma vs. nonseminomatous germ cell tumors [NSGCT]). All models were adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, and treatment variables. We accessed somatic mutations for testicular cancers through AACR Project GENIE v13.1 and compared mutational frequencies by ethnicity. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 43,709 patients (23.3% Hispanic) with median follow-up 106 months (interquartile range: 45-172). Compared to Non-Hispanic Whites (NWH), Hispanics presented at a younger age but with more advanced disease. Hispanics experienced worse CSS for NSGCT (HR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.5-2.0, P < 0.01) but not seminoma. Somatic mutation data was available for 699 patients. KIT and KRAS mutations occurred in 24.2% and 16.9% of seminoma patients (n = 178), respectively. TP53 and KRAS mutations occurred in 12.1% and 7.9% of NSGCT patients (n = 521), respectively. No differences in mutational frequencies were observed between ethnic groups. There was significant heterogeneity in primary ancestral group for Hispanic patients with available data (n = 53); 14 (26.4%) patients had primary Native American ancestry and 30 (56.6%) had primary European ancestry. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer-specific survival is worse for Hispanic men with non-seminoma of the testicle. Somatic mutation analysis suggests no differences by ethnicity, though genetic ancestry is heterogeneous among patients identifying as Hispanic.

Hormonal Therapy and Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: 5-Year Outcomes From a Trial Evaluating Combined Androgen Blockade With 5-Alpha Reductase Inhibitors as an Alternative to Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone Agonists.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that for men undergoing combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer, substitution of LHRH-agonists with 5-α- reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) led to improved preservation of 6-month hormonal quality of life (hQOL). With longer term follow-up, we evaluated disease control. METHODS: In this non-randomized trial, men with unfavorable intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer, aged ≥70 years or with Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, were treated with RT (78-79.2 Gy in 39-44 fractions) and either oral ADT (oADT; 5-ARI with antiandrogen) or standard of care ADT (SOC; leuprolide with antiandrogen) for up to 28 months. The primary endpoint was EPIC hQOL; secondary endpoints included biochemical control and survival as well as changes in cholesterol and hemoglobin levels. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2018, 70 men were enrolled (40 in oADT; 30 in SOC). Median follow-up was 65 months [IQR 36-94]. Five-year freedom from biochemical failure for oADT and SOC was 89% versus 86%, disease free survival was 62% versus 69%, cancer-specific survival was 100% versus 96%, and overall survival was 70% versus 81% (all P>.1). Testosterone (2 mo through 3 yr) and hemoglobin levels (2 mo through 2 yr) were higher, and cholesterol levels (1 yr) were lower in the oADT groups (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In this non-randomized study, men treated with combined RT and oADT had better preservation of hQOL and comparable 5-year disease outcomes to men treated with SOC. Eugonadal testosterone with this approach may yield measurable benefits in cholesterol and hemoglobin levels.

Cancer Surveillance in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With a Pretransplant History of Malignancy: Multidisciplinary Collaborative Expert Opinion.

With improved medical treatments, the prognosis for many malignancies has improved, and more patients are presenting for transplant evaluation with a history of treated cancer. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with a prior malignancy are at higher risk of posttransplant recurrence or de novo malignancy, and they may require a cancer surveillance program that is individualized to their specific needs. There is a dearth of literature on optimal surveillance strategies specific to SOT recipients. A working group of transplant physicians and cancer-specific specialists met to provide expert opinion recommendations on optimal cancer surveillance after transplantation for patients with a history of malignancy. Surveillance strategies provided are mainly based on general population recurrence risk data, immunosuppression effects, and limited transplant-specific data and should be considered expert opinion based on current knowledge. Prospective studies of cancer-specific surveillance models in SOT recipients should be supported to inform posttransplant management of this high-risk population.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 1.

Purpose: Castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) is a complex and heterogeneous condition encompassing a range of clinical presentations. As new approaches have expanded management options, clinicians are left with myriad questions and controversies regarding the optimal individualized management of CSPC. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) multidisciplinary panel was assembled to address the challenges of prostate cancer management. The first annual USPCC meeting included experts in urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nuclear medicine. USPCC co-chairs and session moderators identified key areas of controversy and uncertainty in prostate cancer management and organized the sessions with multidisciplinary presentations and discussion. Throughout the meeting, experts responded to questions prepared by chairs and moderators to identify areas of agreement and controversy. Results: The USPCC panel discussion and question responses for CSPC-related topics are presented. Key advances in CSPC management endorsed by USPCC experts included the development and clinical utilization of gene expression classifiers and artificial intelligence (AI) models for risk stratification and treatment selection in specific patient populations, the use of advanced imaging modalities in patients with clinically localized unfavorable intermediate or high-risk disease and those with biochemical recurrence, recommendations of doublet or triplet therapy for metastatic CSPC (mCSPC), and consideration of prostate and/or metastasis-directed radiation therapy in select patients with mCSPC. Conclusions: CSPC is a diverse disease with many therapeutic options and the potential for adverse outcomes associated with either undertreatment or overtreatment. Future studies are needed to validate and clinically integrate novel technologies, including genomics, AI, and advanced imaging, to optimize outcomes among patients with CSPC.

Expert Perspectives on Controversies in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Management: Narrative Review and Report of the First US Prostate Cancer Conference Part 2.

Background: Management strategies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have rapidly shifted in recent years. As novel imaging and therapeutic approaches have made their way to the clinic, providers are encountering increasingly challenging clinical scenarios, with limited guidance from the current literature. Materials and Methods: The US Prostate Cancer Conference (USPCC) is a multidisciplinary meeting of prostate cancer experts intended to address the many challenges of prostate cancer management. At the first annual USPCC meeting, areas of controversy and consensus were identified during a 2-day meeting that included expert presentations, full-panel discussions, and postdiscussion responses to questions developed by the USPCC cochairs and session moderators. Results: This narrative review covers the USPCC expert discussion and perspectives relevant to mCRPC, including neuroendocrine/aggressive-variant prostate cancer (NEPC/AVPC). Areas of broad agreement identified among USPCC experts include the benefits of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations, the use of radioligand therapy in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive mCRPC, and the need for clinical trials that address real-world clinical questions, including the performance of novel therapies when compared with modern standard-of-care treatment. Ongoing areas of controversy and uncertainty included the appropriateness of PARP inhibitors in patients with non-BRCA1/2 mutations, the optimal definition of PSMA positivity, and systemic therapies for patients with NEPC/AVPC after progression on platinum-based therapies. Conclusions: The first annual USPCC meeting identified several areas of controversy in the management of mCRPC, highlighting the urgent need for clinical trials designed to facilitate treatment selection and sequencing in this heterogeneous disease state.

Ex-vivo microscopic oncotesticular sperm extraction: step-by-step surgical technique at time of radical orchiectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the intraoperative surgical techniques required for simultaneous radical orchiectomy and microscopic oncotesticular sperm extraction (m-OncoTESE) in a step-by-step fashion. DESIGN: Video presentation. SETTING: University Hospital (University of Chicago). PATIENTS: A 37-year-old man (status after right orchiectomy at another institution for stage II-C testicular seminoma with positive preoperative tumor markers) was referred for contralateral orchiectomy of multifocal left testis mass and fertility preservation. Semen analysis before, microscopic testicular sperm extraction during, and semen or testicular specimen analysis after the first orchiectomy were unable to identify any sperm. A postoperative analysis of the m-OncoTESE performed on the left testis resulted in the cryopreservation of 200,000 motile sperm for future assisted reproductive technology (i.e., in vitro fertilization or in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection). INTERVENTIONS: Left radical orchiectomy and left m-OncoTESE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A comprehensive visual documentation of m-OncoTESE surgical techniques with concurrent commentary detailing the reasons behind each surgical step. A brief discussion on the background of m-OncoTESE and alternative fertility preservation methods accompanies the procedure. RESULTS: This video provides a step-by-step guide to performing an m-OncoTESE (proceeding a radical orchiectomy in a patient with testicular cancer) as a means of fertility preservation in an azoospermic patient. Successful extraction and cryopreservation of testicular spermatozoa were achieved after targeted ex-vivo testicular microdissection. CONCLUSIONS: Sperm extraction via m-OncoTESE is a viable option for azoospermic patients with testicular cancer undergoing radical orchiectomies. The use of preoperative imaging and microsurgical techniques facilitates and optimizes surgical dissection and sperm recovery.

PRESTO: A Phase III, Open-Label Study of Intensification of Androgen Blockade in Patients With High-Risk Biochemically Relapsed Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer (AFT-19).

PURPOSE: Patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) after radical prostatectomy and a short PSA doubling time are at risk for distant metastases. Apalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) prolong survival in the metastatic setting. We evaluated whether intensification of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in BRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PRESTO is a randomized phase III, open-label trial in patients with BRPC and PSA doubling time ≤9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03009981). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT control, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + apalutamide + AAP. The primary end point was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), defined as serum PSA >0.2 ng/mL after treatment completion. RESULTS: Five hundred three patients were enrolled. The median PSA was 1.8 ng/mL (IQR, 1.0-3.6). At the first planned interim analysis, both experimental arms significantly prolonged PSA-PFS compared with the control arm (median, 24.9 months for ADT + apalutamide v 20.3 months for ADT; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.77]; P = .00047; median, 26.0 months for ADT + apalutamide + AAP v 20.0 months for ADT; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.71]; P = .00008). Median time to testosterone recovery did not differ across treatment arms. The most common grade ≥3 adverse event was hypertension (7.5%, 7.4%, and 18% in ADT, ADT + apalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide + AAP arms, respectively). CONCLUSION: Intensified AR blockade for a finite duration prolongs PSA-PFS with a manageable safety profile, without adversely affecting time to testosterone recovery. The addition of apalutamide to ADT should be considered in patients with high-risk BRPC.

Amount of Gleason Pattern 3 Is Not Predictive of Risk in Grade Group 2-4 Prostate Cancer.

We investigated whether total Gleason pattern 3 or the proportion of Gleason pattern 4 on biopsy is a significant predictor of adverse pathology. Our findings suggest that quantifying the amount rather than the proportion of Gleason pattern 4 would improve grade group assignment for decision-making in localized prostate cancer.

Genome-wide association study of prostate-specific antigen levels in 392,522 men identifies new loci and improves cross-ancestry prediction.

We conducted a multi-ancestry genome-wide association study of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in 296,754 men (211,342 European ancestry; 58,236 African ancestry; 23,546 Hispanic/Latino; 3,630 Asian ancestry; 96.5% of participants were from the Million Veteran Program). We identified 318 independent genome-wide significant (p≤5e-8) variants, 184 of which were novel. Most demonstrated evidence of replication in an independent cohort (n=95,768). Meta-analyzing discovery and replication (n=392,522) identified 447 variants, of which a further 111 were novel. Out-of-sample variance in PSA explained by our new polygenic risk score reached 16.9% (95% CI=16.1%-17.8%) in European ancestry, 9.5% (95% CI=7.0%-12.2%) in African ancestry, 18.6% (95% CI=15.8%-21.4%) in Hispanic/Latino, and 15.3% (95% CI=12.7%-18.1%) in Asian ancestry, and lower for higher age. Our study highlights how including proportionally more participants from underrepresented populations improves genetic prediction of PSA levels, with potential to personalize prostate cancer screening.

Risk Factors for Relapse in Nonseminomatous Testicular Cancer After Postchemotherapy Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection With Viable Residual Cancer.

PURPOSE: No consensus exists on the management of men with nonseminoma and viable nonteratomatous germ cell tumor in the postchemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (pcRPLND) specimen after first-line chemotherapy. We analyzed surveillance versus different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens and the influence of time to pcRPLND on oncologic outcomes. METHODS: Data on 117 men treated with cisplatin-based first-line chemotherapy between 1990 and 2018 were collected from 13 institutions. All patients had viable nonteratomatous germ cell tumor in the pcRPLND specimen. Surgery was performed after a median of 57 days, followed by either surveillance (n = 64) or adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 53). Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: After controlling for International Germ Cell Cancer Cooperative Group risk group and percent of viable malignant cells found at RPLND, no difference was observed between men managed with surveillance or adjuvant chemotherapy regarding PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.6]; P = .4), CSS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.20 to 2.39; P = .6), and OS (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.25 to 2.44]; P = .7). No statistically significant differences for PFS, CSS, or OS were observed on the basis of chemotherapy regimen or in men treated with pcRPLND ≤57 versus >57 days after first-line chemotherapy. Residual disease with <10% versus ≥10% viable cancer cells were associated with a longer PFS (HR, 3.22 [95% CI, 1.29 to 8]; P = .012). Relapse in the retroperitoneum was observed in 34 (29%) men. CONCLUSION: Men with a complete resection at pcRPLND and <10% viable cells have favorable outcomes without further treatment. Complete retroperitoneal resection seems more important than early pcRPLND.

Improving reader accuracy and specificity with the addition of hybrid multidimensional-MRI to multiparametric-MRI in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancers.

PURPOSE: Compare reader performance when adding the Hybrid Multidimensional-MRI (HM-MRI) map to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI+HM-MRI) versus mpMRI alone and inter-reader agreement in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancers (CSPCa). METHODS: All 61 patients who underwent mpMRI (T2-, diffusion-weighted (DWI), and contrast-enhanced scans) and HM-MRI (with multiple TE/b-value combinations) before prostatectomy or MRI-fused-transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy between August, 2012 and February, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Two experienced readers (R1, R2) and two less-experienced readers (less than 6-year MRI prostate experience) (R3, R4) interpreted mpMRI without/with HM-MRI in the same sitting. Readers recorded the PI-RADS 3-5 score, lesion location, and change in score after adding HM-MRI. Each radiologist's mpMRI+HM-MRI and mpMRI performance measures (AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy) based on pathology, and Fleiss' kappa inter-reader agreement was calculated and compared. RESULTS: Per-sextant R3 and R4 mpMRI+HM-MRI accuracy (82% 81% vs. 77%, 71%; p=.006, <.001) and specificity (89%, 88% vs. 84%, 75%; p=.009, <.001) were higher than with mpMRI. Per-patient R4 mpMRI+HM-MRI specificity improved (48% from 7%; p<.001). R1 and R2 mpMRI+HM-MRI specificity per-sextant (80%, 93% vs. 81%, 93%; p=.51,>.99) and per-patient (37%, 41% vs. 48%, 37%; p=.16, .57) remained similar to mpMRI. R1 and R2 per-patient AUC with mpMRI+HM-MRI (0.63, 0.64 vs. 0.67, 0.61; p=.33, .36) remained similar to mpMRI, but R3 and R4 mpMRI+HM-MRI AUC (0.73, 0.62) approached R1 and R2 AUC. Per-patient inter-reader agreement, mpMRI+HM-MRI Fleiss Kappa, was higher than mpMRI (0.36 [95% CI 0.26, 0.46] vs. 0.17 [95% CI 0.07, 0.27]); p=.009). CONCLUSION: Adding HM-MRI to mpMRI (mpMRI+HM-MRI) improved specificity and accuracy for less-experienced readers, improving overall inter-reader agreement.

Free PSA and Clinically Significant and Fatal Prostate Cancer in the PLCO Screening Trial.

PURPOSE: We studied whether adding percent free PSA to total PSA improves prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer and fatal prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 6,727 men within the intervention arm of PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial) had baseline percent free PSA. Of this cohort, 475 had clinically significant prostate cancer and 98 had fatal prostate cancer. Cumulative incidence and Cox analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between percent free PSA/PSA and clinically significant prostate cancer/fatal prostate cancer. Harrell's C index evaluated predictive ability. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed survival. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 19.7 years, median baseline PSA was 1.19 ng/mL, median percent free PSA was 18%. Cumulative incidence of fatal prostate cancer for men with baseline PSA ≥2 ng/mL and percent free PSA ≤10 was 3.2% and 6.1% at 15 and 25 years, respectively, compared to 0.03% and 1.1% for men with percent free PSA >25%. In younger men (55-64 years) with baseline PSA 2-10 ng/mL, C index improved from 0.56 to 0.60 for clinically significant prostate cancer and from 0.53 to 0.64 for fatal prostate cancer with addition of percent free PSA. In older men (65-74 years), C index improved for clinically significant prostate cancer from 0.60 to 0.66, with no improvement in fatal prostate cancer. Adjusting for age, digital rectal exam, family history of prostate cancer, and total PSA, percent free PSA was associated with clinically significant prostate cancer (HR 1.05, P < .001) per 1% decrease. Percent free PSA improved prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer and fatal prostate cancer for all race groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a large U.S. screening trial, the addition of percent free PSA to total PSA in men with baseline PSA ≥2 ng/mL improved prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer and fatal prostate cancer. Free PSA should be used to risk-stratify screening and decrease unnecessary prostate biopsies.

The influence of the "cancer" label on perceptions and management decisions for low-grade prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Grade Group 1 (GG1) prostate cancer should be managed with active surveillance (AS). Global uptake of AS remains disappointingly slow and heterogeneous. Removal of cancer labels has been proposed to reduce GG1 overtreatment. We sought to determine the impact of GG1 disease terminology on individual's perceptions and decision making. METHODS: Discrete choice experiments were conducted on 3 cohorts: healthy men, canonical partners (partners), and patients with GG1 (patients). Participants reported preferences in a series of vignettes with 2 scenarios each, permuting key opinion leader-endorsed descriptors: biopsy (adenocarcinoma, acinar neoplasm, prostatic acinar neoplasm of low malignant potential [PAN-LMP], prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential), disease (cancer, neoplasm, tumor, growth), management decision (treatment, AS), and recurrence risk (6%, 3%, 1%, <1%). Influence on scenario selection were estimated by conditional logit models and marginal rates of substitution. Two additional validation vignettes with scenarios portraying identical descriptors except the management options were embedded into the discrete choice experiments. RESULTS: Across cohorts (194 healthy men, 159 partners, and 159 patients), noncancer labels PAN-LMP or prostatic acinar neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential and neoplasm, tumor, or growth were favored over adenocarcinoma and cancer (P < .01), respectively. Switching adenocarcinoma and cancer labels to PAN-LMP and growth, respectively, increased AS choice by up to 17%: healthy men (15%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10% to 20%, from 76% to 91%, P < .001), partners (17%, 95% CI = 12% to 24%, from 65% to 82%, P < .001), and patients (7%, 95% CI = 4% to 12%, from 75% to 82%, P = .063). The main limitation is the theoretical nature of questions perhaps leading to less realistic choices. CONCLUSIONS: "Cancer" labels negatively affect perceptions and decision making regarding GG1. Relabeling (ie, avoiding word "cancer") increases proclivity for AS and would likely improve public health.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part II of a two-part series focusing on initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. Please refer to Part I for discussion of initial prostate cancer screening recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of prostate cancer risk should be focused on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Grade Group 2 or higher [GG2+]). The use of laboratory biomarkers, prostate MRI, and biopsy techniques described herein may improve detection and safety when a prostate biopsy is deemed necessary following prostate cancer screening.