MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: High rates of overdiagnosis are a critical barrier to organized prostate cancer screening. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsy has shown the potential to address this challenge, but the implications of its use in the context of organized prostate cancer screening are unknown. METHODS: We conducted a population-based noninferiority trial of prostate cancer screening in which men 50 to 74 years of age from the general population were invited by mail to participate; participants with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng per milliliter or higher were randomly assigned, in a 2:3 ratio, to undergo a standard biopsy (standard biopsy group) or to undergo MRI, with targeted and standard biopsy if the MRI results suggested prostate cancer (experimental biopsy group). The primary outcome was the proportion of men in the intention-to-treat population in whom clinically significant cancer (Gleason score ≥7) was diagnosed. A key secondary outcome was the detection of clinically insignificant cancers (Gleason score 6). RESULTS: Of 12,750 men enrolled, 1532 had PSA levels of 3 ng per milliliter or higher and were randomly assigned to undergo biopsy: 603 were assigned to the standard biopsy group and 929 to the experimental biopsy group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, clinically significant cancer was diagnosed in 192 men (21%) in the experimental biopsy group, as compared with 106 men (18%) in the standard biopsy group (difference, 3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1 to 7; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The percentage of clinically insignificant cancers was lower in the experimental biopsy group than in the standard biopsy group (4% [41 participants] vs. 12% [73 participants]; difference, -8 percentage points; 95% CI, -11 to -5). CONCLUSIONS: MRI with targeted and standard biopsy in men with MRI results suggestive of prostate cancer was noninferior to standard biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in a population-based screening-by-invitation trial and resulted in less detection of clinically insignificant cancer. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; STHLM3-MRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03377881.).

Prostate cancer screening using a combination of risk-prediction, MRI, and targeted prostate biopsies (STHLM3-MRI): a prospective, population-based, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduces prostate cancer mortality but can lead to adverse outcomes. We aimed to compare a traditional screening approach with a diagnostic strategy of blood-based risk prediction combined with MRI-targeted biopsies. METHODS: We did a prospective, population-based, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial (STHLM3-MRI) in Stockholm county, Sweden. Men aged 50-74 years were randomly selected by Statistics Sweden and invited by mail to participate in screening; those with an elevated risk of prostate cancer, defined as either a PSA of 3 ng/mL or higher or a Stockholm3 score of 0·11 or higher were eligible for randomisation. Men with a previous prostate cancer diagnosis, who had undergone a prostate biopsy within 60 days before the invitation to participate, with a contraindication for MRI, or with severe illness were excluded. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (2:3) using computer-generated blocks of five, stratified by clinically significant prostate cancer risk, to receive either systematic prostate biopsies (standard group) or biparametric MRI followed by MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy in MRI-positive participants (experimental group). The primary outcome was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at prostate biopsy, defined as a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or higher. We used a margin of 0·78 to assess non-inferiority for the primary outcome. Key secondary outcome measures included the proportion of men with clinically insignificant prostate cancer (defined as a Gleason score of 3 + 3), and the number of any prostate MRI and biopsy procedures done. We did two comparisons: Stockholm3 (using scores of 0·11 and 0·15 as cutoffs) versus PSA in the experimental group (paired analyses) and PSA plus standard biopsy versus Stockholm3 plus MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy (unpaired, randomised analyses). All analyses were intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03377881. FINDINGS: Between Feb 5, 2018, and March 4, 2020, 49 118 men were invited to participate, of whom 12 750 were enrolled and provided blood specimens, and 2293 with elevated risk were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=1372) or the standard group (n=921). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer was 0·76 (95% CI 0·72-0·80) for Stockholm3 and 0·60 (0·54-0·65) for PSA. In the experimental group, a Stockholm3 of 0·11 or higher was non-inferior to a PSA of 3 ng/mL or higher for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (227 vs 192; relative proportion [RP] 1·18 [95% CI 1·09-1·28], p<0·0001 for non-inferiority), and also detected a similar number of low-grade prostate cancers (50 vs 41; 1·22 [0·96-1·55], p=0·053 for superiority) and was associated with more MRIs and biopsies. Compared with PSA of 3 ng/mL or higher, a Stockholm3 of 0·15 or higher provided identical sensitivity to detect clinically significant cancer, and led to fewer MRI procedures (545 vs 846; 0·64 [0·55-0·82]) and fewer biopsy procedures (311 vs 338; 0·92 (0·86-1·03). Compared with screening using PSA and systematic biopsies, a Stockholm3 of 0·11 or higher combined with MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies was associated with higher detection of clinically significant cancers (227 [3·0%] men tested vs 106 [2·1%] men tested; RP 1·44 [95% CI 1·15-1·81]), lower detection of low-grade cancers (50 [0·7%] vs 73 [1·4%]; 0·46 [0·32-0·66]), and led to fewer biopsy procedures. Patients randomly assigned to the experimental group had a lower incidence of prescription of antibiotics for infection (25 [1·8%] of 1372 vs 41 [4·4%] of 921; p=0·0002) and a lower incidence of admission to hospital (16 [1·2%] vs 31 [3·4%]; p=0·0003) than those in the standard group. INTERPRETATION: The Stockholm3 test can inform risk stratification before MRI and targeted biopsies in prostate cancer screening. Combining the Stockholm3 test with an MRI-targeted biopsy approach for prostate cancer screening decreases overdetection while maintaining the ability to detect clinically significant cancer. FUNDING: The Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Research Council, and Stockholm City Council.

Repeated Prostate Cancer Screening Using Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Secondary Analysis of the STHLM3-MRI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proposed to enhance the benefit-to-harm ratio of prostate cancer screening, but data on repeated screening outcomes are lacking. Objective: To describe outcomes of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening with MRI and prostate biopsies at repeat screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis examined the population-based, screen-by-invitation STHLM3-MRI randomized clinical trial, which recruited Swedish men aged 50 to 74 years. Men were eligible for repeat screening at 2 to 3 years if they had PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or greater at trial inclusion, were randomized to the MRI-targeted group (including screening using biomarkers and MRI), and were not diagnosed with prostate cancer after the first screening round. Repeat screening was performed between November 10, 2021, and February 20, 2023. Data analysis was performed between May and August 2023. Intervention: Participants underwent blood sampling, including PSA testing. A biparametric MRI scan was performed if PSA levels were 3 ng/mL or greater, and men with lesions with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3 or greater were referred for targeted and systematic biopsies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of ≥3 + 4). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men with clinically insignificant cancer (Gleason score of 6), the number of elevated PSA tests, MRI scans, and biopsy procedures. Results: Of 7609 men from the first screening round, 2078 (27.3%) were eligible for and were invited for rescreening. Among the invitees, 1500 (72.2%) participated. Their median age was 67 (IQR, 61-72) years. Of 1094 men with PSA levels between 1.5 and 2.9 ng/mL in the first screening round, 326 (29.8%) had levels of 3 ng/mL or greater in the second round. Overall, 667 men (44.5%) had PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or greater: 617 underwent MRI (92.5%), revealing 51 (7.6%) with equivocal lesions (PI-RADS score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) with suspicious lesions (PI-RADS score of ≥4). Only 10 of 383 men (2.6%) with a prior negative MRI result had a lesion with a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater. Among the 1500 rescreened men, 48 (3.2%) had a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater, including 19 (1.3%) with a score of 4 + 3 or greater and 11 (0.7%) with a score of 6. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the STHLM3-MRI randomized clinical trial, cancer detection during the second screening round in biennial PSA and MRI-based prostate cancer screening was limited, and the detection of low-grade tumors remained low. A substantial proportion of men exhibited elevated PSA levels during rescreening, and a considerable portion of MRI scans performed lacked lesions suggestive of cancer. Future studies should explore strategies to reduce MRI-related resource use. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03377881.

Incorporating Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Biomarkers in Active Surveillance Protocols - Results From the Prospective Stockholm3 Active Surveillance Trial (STHLM3AS).

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PC) can lead to patient morbidity and healthcare overutilization. The aim of this study was to evaluate an AS protocol using the Stockholm3 test and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to reduce biopsy intensity. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter study of 280 invited men from a contemporary screening study (STHLM3), with Gleason Score (GS) 3 + 3 PC on a current AS protocol. Patients underwent prostate-MRI and blood sampling for analysis of the Stockholm3 test including protein biomarkers, genetic variants, and clinical variables to predict risk of GS ≥3 + 4 PC followed by systematic biopsies and targeted biopsies (for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 ≥3 lesions) in all men. Primary outcomes were reclassification to GS ≥3 + 4 PC and clinically significant PC (csPCa), including unfavorable intermediate risk PC or higher based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: Adding MRI-targeted biopsies to systematic biopsies increased sensitivity of GS ≥3 + 4 PC compared with systematic biopsies alone (relative sensitivity [RS] = 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28 to 1.85). Performing biopsies in only MRI positive increased sensitivity of GS ≥3 + 4 PC (RS = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.67) and reduced number of biopsy procedures by 49.3% while missing 7.2% GS ≥3 + 4 PC and 1.4% csPCa. Excluding men with negative Stockholm3 test reduced the number of MRI investigations at follow-up by 22.5% and biopsies by 56.8% while missing 6.9% GS ≥3 + 4 PC and 1.3% csPCa. CONCLUSION: Including MRI and targeted/systematic biopsies in the follow-up for men on AS increased sensitivity of PC reclassification. Incorporation of risk prediction models including biomarkers may reduce the need for MRI use in men with low-risk PC.

Enhanced Recovery After Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy: EAU Robotic Urology Section Scientific Working Group Consensus View.

CONTEXT: Radical cystectomy (RC) is associated with frequent morbidity and prolonged length of stay (LOS) irrespective of surgical approach. Increasing evidence from colorectal surgery indicates that minimally invasive surgery and enhanced recovery programmes (ERPs) can reduce surgical morbidity and LOS. ERPs are now recognised as an important component of surgical management for RC. However, there is comparatively little evidence for ERPs after robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). Due to the multimodal nature of ERPs, they are not easily validated through randomised controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: To provide a European Association of Urology (EAU) Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) policy on ERPs to guide standardised perioperative management of RARC patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The guidance was formulated in four phases: (1) systematic literature review of evidence for ERPs in robotic, laparoscopic, and open RC; (2) an online questionnaire survey formulated and sent to ERUS Scientific Working Group members; (3) achievement of consensus from an expert panel using the Delphi process; and (4) a standardised reporting template to audit compliance and outcome designed and approved by the committee. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Consensus was reached in multiple areas of an ERP for RARC. The key principles include patient education, optimisation of nutrition, RARC approach, standardised anaesthetic, analgesic, and antiemetic regimens, and early mobilisation. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus represents the views of an expert panel established to advise ERUS on ERPs for RARC. The ERUS Scientific Working Group recognises the role of ERPs and endorses them as standardised perioperative care for patients undergoing RARC. ERPs in robotic surgery will continue to evolve with technological and pharmaceutical advances and increasing understanding of the role of surgery-specific ERPs. PATIENT SUMMARY: There is currently a lack of high-level evidence exploring the benefits of enhanced recovery programmes (ERPs) in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). We reported a consensus view on a standardised ERP specific to patients undergoing RARC. It was formulated by experts from high-volume RARC hospitals in Europe, combining current evidence for ERPs with experts' knowledge of perioperative care for robotic surgery.

Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy.

CONTEXT: Although open radical cystectomy (ORC) is still the standard approach, laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) have gained popularity. OBJECTIVE: To report a systematic literature review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications of RARC in comparison with ORC and LRC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched using a free-text protocol including the terms robot-assisted radical cystectomy or da Vinci radical cystectomy or robot* radical cystectomy. RARC case series and studies comparing RARC with either ORC or LRC were collected. Cumulative analysis was conducted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The searches retrieved 105 papers. According to the different diversion type, overall mean operative time ranged from 360 to 420 min. Similarly, mean blood loss ranged from 260 to 480 ml. Mean in-hospital stay was about 9 d for all diversion types, with consistently high readmission rates. In series reporting on RARC with either extracorporeal or intracorporeal conduit diversion, overall 90-d complication rates were 59% (high-grade complication: 15%). In series reporting RARC with intracorporeal continent diversion, the overall 30-d complication rate was 45.7% (high-grade complication: 28%). Reported mortality rates were ≤3% for all diversion types. Comparing RARC and ORC, cumulative analyses demonstrated shorter operative time for ORC, whereas blood loss and in-hospital stay were better with RARC (all p values <0.003). Moreover, 90-d complication rates of any-grade and 90-d grade 3 complication rates were lower for RARC (all p values <0.04), whereas high-grade complication and mortality rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: RARC can be performed safely with acceptable perioperative outcome, although complications are common. Cumulative analyses demonstrated that operative time was shorter with ORC, whereas RARC may provide some advantages in terms of blood loss and transfusion rates and, more limitedly, for postoperative complication rates over ORC and LRC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Although open radical cystectomy (RC) is still regarded as a standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, laparoscopic and robot-assisted RC are becoming more popular. Robotic RC can be safely performed with acceptably low risk of blood loss, transfusion, and intraoperative complications; however, as for open RC, the risk of postoperative complications is high, including a substantial risk of major complication and reoperation.

Best practices in robot-assisted radical cystectomy and urinary reconstruction: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel.

CONTEXT: Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly used for radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary reconstruction. Sufficient data have accumulated to allow evidence-based consensus on key issues such as perioperative management, comparative effectiveness on surgical complications, and oncologic short- to midterm outcomes. OBJECTIVE: A 2-d conference of experts on RC and urinary reconstruction was organized in Pasadena, California, and the City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, California, to systematically review existing peer-reviewed literature on robot-assisted RC (RARC), extended lymphadenectomy, and urinary reconstruction. No commercial support was obtained for the conference. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed in agreement with the PRISMA statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Systematic literature reviews and individual presentations were discussed, and consensus on all key issues was obtained. Most operative, intermediate-term oncologic, functional, and complication outcomes are similar between open RC (ORC) and RARC. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC generally requires longer operative time than ORC, particularly with intracorporeal reconstruction. Robotic assistance provides ergonomic value for surgeons. Surgeon experience and institutional volume strongly predict favorable outcomes for either open or robotic techniques. CONCLUSIONS: RARC appears to be similar to ORC in terms of operative, pathologic, intermediate-term oncologic, complication, and most functional outcomes. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC can be more expensive than ORC, although high procedural volume may attenuate this difference. PATIENT SUMMARY: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is an alternative to open surgery for patients with bladder cancer who require removal of their bladder and reconstruction of their urinary tract. RARC appears to be similar to open surgery for most important outcomes such as the rate of complications and intermediate-term cancer-specific survival. Although RARC has some ergonomic advantages for surgeons and may result in less blood loss during surgery, it is more time consuming and may be more expensive than open surgery.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in clinical stage II testicular cancer.

Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissections were performed in three patients after chemotherapy for clinical stage II testicular cancer. Although our experience is still limited, we think that the outcomes of the cases suggest a role for robot-assisted surgery in selected cases undergoing post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection.

Robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy in a small child with rhabdomyosarcoma: a case report.

We report the first case of a robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy in a 22-month-old boy with embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma in his urinary bladder. Treatment according to international protocol CWS-2002 P (Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studie) was given prior to surgery. The da Vinci S Surgical System from Intuitive Surgical (Sunnyvale, CA, USA) was used to laparoscopically remove the urinary bladder and prostate radically. The surgical procedure performed and the postoperative course were uneventful. This technique is safe and feasible also in small children. It seems to have advantages over open surgery and no disadvantages. We recommend this technique for further use.