Regional Histopathology and Prostate MRI Positivity: A Secondary Analysis of the PROMIS Trial.

Background The effects of regional histopathologic changes on prostate MRI scans have not been accurately quantified in men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and no previous biopsy. Purpose To assess how Gleason grade, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), inflammation, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), or atypical small acinar proliferation within a Barzell zone affects the odds of MRI visibility. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of the Prostate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS; May 2012 to November 2015), consecutive participants who underwent multiparametric MRI followed by a combined biopsy, including 5-mm transperineal mapping (TPM), were evaluated. TPM pathologic findings were reported at the whole-prostate level and for each of 20 Barzell zones per prostate. An expert panel blinded to the pathologic findings reviewed MRI scans and declared which Barzell areas spanned Likert score 3-5 lesions. The relationship of Gleason grade and MCCL to zonal MRI outcome (visible vs nonvisible) was assessed using generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for individual participants. Inflammation, PIN, and atypical small acinar proliferation were similarly assessed in men who had negative TPM results. Results Overall, 161 men (median age, 62 years [IQR, 11 years]) were evaluated and 3179 Barzell zones were assigned MRI status. Compared with benign areas, the odds of MRI visibility were higher when a zone contained cancer with a Gleason score of 3+4 (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% CI: 1.9, 4.9; P < .001) or Gleason score greater than or equal to 4+3 (OR, 8.7; 95% CI: 4.5, 17.0; P < .001). MCCL also determined visibility (OR, 1.24 per millimeter increase; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.33; P < .001), but odds were lower with each prostate volume doubling (OR, 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.9). In men who were TPM-negative, the presence of PIN increased the odds of zonal visibility (OR, 3.7; 95% CI: 1.5, 9.1; P = .004). Conclusion An incremental relationship between cancer burden and prostate MRI visibility was observed. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia contributed to false-positive MRI findings. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT01292291 © RSNA, 2022 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Harmath in this issue.

Evaluation of Outcomes Following Focal Ablative Therapy for Treatment of Localized Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients >70 Years: A Multi-institute, Multi-energy 15-Year Experience.

PURPOSE: In older patients who do not wish to undergo watchful waiting, focal therapy could be an alternative to the more morbid radical treatment. We evaluated the role of focal therapy in patients 70 years and older as an alternative management modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 649 patients across 11 UK sites receiving focal high-intensity focused ultrasound or cryotherapy between June 2006 and July 2020 reported within the UK-based HEAT (HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment) and ICE (International Cryotherapy Evaluation) registries were evaluated. Primary outcome was failure-free survival, defined by need for more than 1 focal reablation, progression to radical treatment, development of metastases, need for systemic treatment, or prostate cancer-specific death. This was compared to the failure-free survival in patients undergoing radical treatment via a propensity score weighted analysis. RESULTS: Median age was 74 years (IQR: 72, 77) and median follow-up 24 months (IQR: 12, 41). Sixty percent had intermediate-risk disease and 35% high-risk disease. A total of 113 patients (17%) required further treatment. Sixteen had radical treatment and 44 required systemic treatment. Failure-free survival was 82% (95% CI: 76%-87%) at 5 years. Comparing patients who had radical therapy to those who had focal therapy, 5-year failure-free survival was 96% (95% CI: 93%-100%) and 82% (95% CI: 75%-91%) respectively (P < .001). Ninety-three percent of those in the radical treatment arm had received radiotherapy as their primary treatment with its associated use of androgen deprivation therapy, thereby leading to potential overestimation of treatment success in the radical treatment arm, especially given the similar metastases-free and overall survival rates seen. CONCLUSIONS: We propose focal therapy to be an effective management option for the older or comorbid patient who is unsuitable for or not willing to undergo radical treatment.

Accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer by combining Proclarix with magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVES: To assess of the clinical performance of Proclarix® (a novel Conformité Européenne [CE]-marked biomarker test aiding in the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer [csPCa]) alone or in combination with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to predict csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included blood samples from 721 men undergoing mpMRI followed by biopsy at University College London, London, and Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. Samples were tested blindly. The Proclarix-MRI model combining prostate volume, Proclarix and mpMRI results was trained using the UCL cohort (n = 159) and validated in the Vall d'Hebron cohort (n = 562). Its diagnostic performance was established in correlation to biopsy outcome and compared to available clinical parameters and risk calculators. RESULTS: Clinical performance of the Proclarix-MRI model in the validation cohort did not significantly differ from the training cohort and resulted in a sensitivity for csPCa of 90%, 90% negative predictive value and 66% positive predictive value. The Proclarix-MRI score's specificity (68%) was significantly (P < 0.001) better than the MRI-European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk score (51%), Proclarix (27%) or mpMRI (28%) alone. In addition, Proclarix by itself was found to be useful in the MRI Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score 3 subgroup by outperforming prostate-specific antigen density in terms of specificity (25% vs 13%, P = 0.004) at 100% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: When combined with mpMRI and prostate volume, Proclarix reliably predicted csPCa and ruled out men with no or indolent cancer. A large reduction of two thirds of unneeded biopsies was achieved. Proclarix can further be used with high confidence to reliably detect csPCa in men with an indeterminate PI-RADS score 3 mpMRI. Despite these encouraging results, further validation is needed.

The rapid assessment for prostate imaging and diagnosis (RAPID) prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To report outcomes within the Rapid Assessment for Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) diagnostic pathway, introduced to reduce patient and healthcare burdens and standardize delivery of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transperineal biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2130 patients from three centres who completed the RAPID pathway (3 April 2017 to 31 March 2020) were consecutively entered as a prospective registry. These patients were also compared to a pre-RAPID cohort of 2435 patients. Patients on the RAPID pathway with an MRI score 4 or 5 and those with PSA density ≥0.12 and an MRI score 3 were advised to undergo a biopsy. Primary outcomes were rates of biopsy and cancer detection. Secondary outcomes included comparison of transperineal biopsy techniques, patient acceptability and changes in time to diagnosis before and after the introduction of RAPID. RESULTS: The median patient age and PSA level were 66 years and 6.6 ng/mL, respectively. Biopsy could be omitted in 43% of patients (920/2130). A further 7.9% of patients (168/2130) declined a recommendation for biopsy. The percentage of biopsies avoided among sites varied (45% vs 36% vs 51%; P < 0.001). In all, 30% (221/742) had a local anaesthetic (grid and stepper) transperineal biopsy. Clinically significant cancer detection (any Gleason score ≥3 + 4) was 26% (560/2130) and detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 alone constituted 5.8% (124/2130); detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 did not significantly vary among sites (P = 0.7). Among participants who received a transperineal targeted biopsy, there was no difference in cancer detection rates among local anaesthetic, sedation and general anaesthetic groups. In the 2435 patients from the pre-RAPID cohor, time to diagnosis was 32.1 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.3-34.9) compared to 15.9 days (95% CI 12.9-34.9) in the RAPID group. A total of 141 consecutive patient satisfaction surveys indicated a high satisfaction rate with the pathway; 50% indicated a preference for having all tests on a single day. CONCLUSIONS: The RAPID prostate cancer diagnostic pathway allows 43% of men to avoid a biopsy while preserving good detection of clinically significant cancers and low detection of insignificant cancers, although there were some centre-level variations.

External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION: In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.

Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI of the prostate followed by targeted biopsy is recommended for patients at risk of prostate cancer. However, multiparametric ultrasound is more readily available than multiparametric MRI. Data from paired-cohort validation studies and randomised, controlled trials support the use of multiparametric MRI, whereas the evidence for individual ultrasound methods and multiparametric ultrasound is only derived from case series. We aimed to establish the overall agreement between multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study in seven hospitals in the UK. Patients at risk of prostate cancer, aged 18 years or older, with an elevated prostate-specific antigen concentration or abnormal findings on digital rectal examination underwent both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI. Multiparametric ultrasound consisted of B-mode, colour Doppler, real-time elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Multiparametric MRI included high-resolution T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging (dedicated high B 1400 s/mm2 or 2000 s/mm2 and apparent diffusion coefficient map), and dynamic contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted images. Patients with positive findings on multiparametric ultrasound or multiparametric MRI underwent targeted biopsies but were masked to their test results. If both tests yielded positive findings, the order of targeting at biopsy was randomly assigned (1:1) using stratified (according to centre only) block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of positive lesions on, and agreement between, multiparametric MRI and multiparametric ultrasound in identifying suspicious lesions (Likert score of ≥3), and detection of clinically significant cancer (defined as a Gleason score of ≥4 + 3 in any area or a maximum cancer core length of ≥6 mm of any grade [PROMIS definition 1]) in those patients who underwent a biopsy. Adverse events were defined according to Good Clinical Practice and trial regulatory guidelines. The trial is registered on ISRCTN, 38541912, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02712684, with recruitment and follow-up completed. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2016, and Nov 7, 2019, 370 eligible patients were enrolled; 306 patients completed both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI and 257 underwent a prostate biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound was positive in 272 (89% [95% CI 85-92]) of 306 patients and multiparametric MRI was positive in 238 patients (78% [73-82]; difference 11·1% [95% CI 5·1-17·1]). Positive test agreement was 73·2% (95% CI 67·9-78·1; κ=0·06 [95% CI -0·56 to 0·17]). Any cancer was detected in 133 (52% [95% CI 45·5-58]) of 257 patients, with 83 (32% [26-38]) of 257 being clinically significant by PROMIS definition 1. Each test alone would result in multiparametric ultrasound detecting PROMIS definition 1 cancer in 66 (26% [95% CI 21-32]) of 257 patients who had biopsies and multiparametric MRI detecting it in 77 (30% [24-36]; difference -4·3% [95% CI -8·3% to -0·3]). Combining both tests detected 83 (32% [95% CI 27-38]) of 257 clinically significant cancers as per PROMIS definition 1; of these 83 cancers, six (7% [95% CI 3-15]) were detected exclusively with multiparametric ultrasound, and 17 (20% [12-31]) were exclusively detected by multiparametric MRI (agreement 91·1% [95% CI 86·9-94·2]; κ=0·78 [95% CI 0·69-0·86]). No serious adverse events were related to trial activity. INTERPRETATION: Multiparametric ultrasound detected 4·3% fewer clinically significant prostate cancers than multiparametric MRI, but it would lead to 11·1% more patients being referred for a biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound could be an alternative to multiparametric MRI as a first test for patients at risk of prostate cancer, particularly if multiparametric MRI cannot be carried out. Both imaging tests missed clinically significant cancers detected by the other, so the use of both would increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancers compared with using each test alone. FUNDING: The Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Prostate Cancer UK, and UCLH Charity and Barts Charity.

Prostate cancer in transgender women: what does a urologist need to know?

OBJECTIVE: To review of the existing literature, current guidelines and standard of practice related to prostate cancer in transgender women, as the transgender population share many of the same healthcare needs as their cisgender counterparts, but may have additional specialist needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a non-systematic review of the literature, current guidelines and standard of practice related to prostate cancer in transgender women. RESULTS: Our search revealed 10 case reports of prostate cancer in transgender women, four specialist opinion papers, six cohort studies, and four systematic reviews. The information in these publications were assimilated to produce a review of prostate cancer in transgender women. CONCLUSION: The risk of prostate cancer in transgender women who are not on gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or who have not had gender-affirming surgery (GAS) and gender non-conforming individuals (who may never commence GAHT or have GAS) is the same as that in the cis male population. In these patients, healthcare professionals need to be able to discuss screening, diagnostic and treatment options considering future wishes for gender-affirming treatment. Prostate cancer incidence in transgender women on GAHT or following GAS is lower than age-matched cis-male counterparts, but diagnosis and treatment is more nuanced. The present review discusses the existing literature about development and incidence of prostate cancer in this population, and makes recommendations about screening, the usefulness of diagnostic tools e.g. prostate-specific antigen and magnetic resonance imaging, and considerations when formulating treatment. Potential directions for future research are discussed, which will hopefully lead to development of robust evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer in transgender women.

Clinical and pathologic characteristics to select patients for focal therapy or partial gland ablation of nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Focal therapy or partial gland ablation for nonmetastatic prostate cancer is gaining popularity not just as an alternative to active surveillance, but as an acceptable alternative to whole gland therapy in appropriate cases. This review summarizes recent evidence to help select patients for optimal outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recommendations by expert panels have become less conservative with each meeting. As experience with older modalities for focal therapy grows, newer modalities continue to be introduced. We are now in a position to offer personalized treatment pathway considering nuances of each focal therapy modality. SUMMARY: The ideal case for focal therapy should be an MRI visible significant lesion (PIRADS score ≥ 3), with a positive biopsy for significant cancer (Gleason grade group 2-3) in the corresponding targeted biopsy area, and insignificant or absent disease in the nontarget random biopsy areas. Multifocal disease can also be selectively treated. Salvage focal ablation is an attractive treatment option for radio-recurrent or index focal therapy failure cases.

Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic accuracy measures when comparing multiple screening tests - an application to the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study.

INTRODUCTION: Novel screening tests used to detect a target condition are compared against either a reference standard or other existing screening methods. However, as it is not always possible to apply the reference standard on the whole population under study, verification bias is introduced. Statistical methods exist to adjust estimates to account for this bias. We extend common methods to adjust for verification bias when multiple tests are compared to a reference standard using data from a prospective double blind screening study for prostate cancer. METHODS: Begg and Greenes method and multiple imputation are extended to include the results of multiple screening tests which determine condition verification status. These two methods are compared to the complete case analysis using the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study data. IP1-PROSTAGRAM used a paired-cohort double-blind design to evaluate the use of imaging as alternative tests to screen for prostate cancer, compared to a blood test called prostate specific antigen (PSA). Participants with positive imaging (index) and/or PSA (control) underwent a prostate biopsy (reference standard). RESULTS: When comparing complete case results to Begg and Greenes and methods of multiple imputation there is a statistically significant increase in the specificity estimates for all screening tests. Sensitivity estimates remained similar across the methods, with completely overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Negative predictive value (NPV) estimates were higher when adjusting for verification bias, compared to complete case analysis, even though the 95% confidence intervals overlap. Positive predictive value (PPV) estimates were similar across all methods. CONCLUSION: Statistical methods are required to adjust for verification bias in accuracy estimates of screening tests. Expanding Begg and Greenes method to include multiple screening tests can be computationally intensive, hence multiple imputation is recommended, especially as it can be modified for low prevalence of the target condition.

Prostate Radiofrequency Focal Ablation (ProRAFT) Trial: A Prospective Development Study Evaluating a Bipolar Radiofrequency Device to Treat Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We determined the early efficacy of bipolar radiofrequency ablation with a coil design for focal ablation of clinically significant localized prostate cancer visible at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective IDEAL phase 2 development study (Focal Prostate Radiofrequency Ablation, NCT02294903) recruited treatment-naïve patients with a single focus of significant localized prostate cancer (Gleason 7 or 4 mm or more of Gleason 6) concordant with a lesion visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Intervention was a focal ablation with a bipolar radiofrequency system (Encage™) encompassing the lesion and a predefined margin using nonrigid magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion. Primary outcome was the proportion of men with absence of significant localized disease on biopsy at 6 months. Trial followup consisted of serum prostate specific antigen, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 1 week, and 6 and 12 months post-ablation. Validated patient reported outcome measures for urinary, erectile and bowel functions, and adverse events monitoring system were used. Analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. RESULTS: Of 21 patients recruited 20 received the intervention. Baseline characteristics were median age 66 years (IQR 63-69) and preoperative median prostate specific antigen 7.9 ng/ml (5.3-9.6). A total of 18 patients (90%) had Gleason 7 disease with median maximum cancer 7 mm (IQR 5-10), for a median of 2.8 cc multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions (IQR 1.4-4.8). Targeted biopsy of the treated area (median number of cores 6, IQR 5-8) showed absence of significant localized prostate cancer in 16/20 men (80%), concordant with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. There was a low profile of side effects at patient reported outcome measures analysis and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy of significant localized prostate cancer associated with a magnetic resonance imaging lesion using bipolar radiofrequency showed early efficacy to ablate cancer with low rates of genitourinary and rectal side effects.