Can MRI Help Inform Which Men With a History of Multifocal High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Atypical Small Acinar Proliferation Remain at an Elevated Risk for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

PURPOSE: We investigated the association of MRI findings in men with a previous diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) or multifocal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) with pathologic findings on repeat biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with ASAP/multifocal HGPIN undergoing a repeat biopsy in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry. We included men with and without an MRI after the index biopsy demonstrating ASAP/multifocal HGPIN but before the repeat biopsy. Men with an MRI prior to the index biopsy were excluded. We compared the proportion of men with ≥ GG2 CaP (Grade Group 2 prostate cancer) on repeat biopsy among the following groups with the χ2 test: no MRI, PIRADS (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) ≥ 4, and PIRADS ≤ 3. Multivariable models were used to estimate the adjusted association between MRI findings and ≥ GG2 CaP on repeat biopsy. RESULTS: Among the 207 men with a previous diagnosis of ASAP/multifocal HGPIN that underwent a repeat biopsy, men with a PIRADS ≥ 4 lesion had a higher proportion of ≥ GG2 CaP (56%) compared with men without an MRI (12%, P < .001). A lower proportion of men with PIRADS ≤ 3 lesions had ≥ GG2 CaP (3.0%) compared with men without an MRI (12%, P = .13). In the adjusted model, men with a PIRADS 4 to 5 lesion had higher odds (OR: 11.4, P < .001) of ≥ GG2 CaP on repeat biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a valuable diagnostic tool to triage which men with a history of ASAP or multifocal HGPIN on initial biopsy should undergo or avoid repeat biopsy without missing clinically significant CaP.

A Multi-Institutional Study of Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Nanoparticle-Directed Focal Therapy for Prostate Ablation.

PURPOSE: Focal therapy aims to provide a durable oncologic treatment option for men with prostate cancer (PCa), while preserving their quality of life. Most focal therapy modalities rely on the direct tissue effect, resulting in a possible nontargeted approach to ablation. Here, we report the results of the first human feasibility trial utilizing nanoparticle-directed focal photothermal ablation for PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, open-label, single-arm, multicenter study of men with localized PCa in Gleason Grade Group 1 to 3 was conducted. Men received a single infusion of gold nanoparticles (AuroShells), followed by magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided laser excitation of the target tissue to induce photothermal ablation. MRI was used to assess the effectiveness of prostate tissue ablation at 48 to 96 hours, 3 months, and 12 months post treatment. At 3 months, a targeted fusion biopsy of the lesion(s) was conducted. At 12 months, a targeted fusion biopsy and standard templated biopsy were performed. Treatment success was determined based on a negative MR/US fusion biopsy outcome within the treated area. RESULTS: Forty-six men were enrolled in the study, and 44 men with 45 lesions completed nanoparticle infusion and laser treatment. The mean PSA level at baseline was 9.5 ng/mL, which decreased to 5.9 ng/mL at 3 months and to 4.7 ng/mL at 12 months (P < .0001). The oncologic success rates at 3 and 12 months resulted in 29 (66%) and 32 (73%) of 44 patients, respectively, being successfully treated, confirmed with negative MR/US fusion biopsies within the ablation zone. Among Gleason Grade Group, maximum lesion diameter on MRI, prostate volume, and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scoring, the maximum lesion diameter was significantly associated with the odds of treatment failure at 12 months (P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: Nanoparticle-directed focal laser ablation of neoplastic prostate tissue resulted in 73% of patients with successful treatment at 12 months post treatment, confirmed by negative MR/US fusion biopsy of the treated lesion and a systematic biopsy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NO.: 02680535.

Upgrading on Per Protocol versus For Cause surveillance prostate biopsies: An opportunity to decreasing the burden of active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Most prostate cancer (PC) active surveillance (AS) protocols recommend "Per Protocol" surveillance biopsy (PPSBx) every 1-3 years, even if clinical and imaging parameters remained stable. Herein, we compared the incidence of upgrading on biopsies that met criteria for "For Cause" surveillance biopsy (FCSBx) versus PPSBx. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed men with GG1 PC on AS in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Surveillance prostate biopsies obtained 1 year after diagnosis were classified as either PPSBx or FCSBx. Biopsies were retrospectively deemed FCSBx if any of these criteria were met: PSA velocity > 0.75 ng/mL/year; rise in PSA > 3 ng from baseline; surveillance magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (sMRI) with a PIRADS ≥ 4; change in DRE. Biopsies were classified PPSBx if none of these criteria were met. The primary outcome was upgrading to ≥GG2 or ≥GG3 on surveillance biopsy. The secondary objective was to assess for the association of reassuring (PIRADS ≤ 3) confirmatory or surveillance MRI findings and upgrading for patients undergoing PPSBx. Proportions were compared with the chi-squared test. RESULTS: We identified 1773 men with GG1 PC in MUSIC who underwent a surveillance biopsy. Men meeting criteria for FCSBx had more upgrading to ≥GG2 (45%) and ≥GG3 (12%) compared with those meeting criteria for PPSBx (26% and 4.9%, respectively, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). Men with a reassuring confirmatory or surveillance MRI undergoing PPSBx had less upgrading to ≥GG2 (17% and 17%, respectively) and ≥GG3 (2.9% and 1.8%, respectively) disease compared with men without an MRI (31% and 7.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing PPSBx had significantly less upgrading compared with men undergoing FCSBx. Confirmatory and surveillance MRI seem to be valuable tools to stratify the intensity of surveillance biopsies for men on AS. These data may help inform the development of a risk-stratified, data driven AS protocol.

The Use and Short-term Outcomes of Active Surveillance in Men With National Comprehensive Cancer Network Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: The Initial Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Experience.

PURPOSE: National Comprehensive Cancer Network favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease with varied oncologic and survival outcomes. We describe the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative's experience with the use of active surveillance and the short-term oncologic outcomes for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.Materials and Methods:We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry for men diagnosed with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer from 2012-2020. The proportion of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance was calculated by year of diagnosis. For men selecting active surveillance, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate treatment-free survival. To assess for the oncologic safety of active surveillance, we compared the proportion of patients with adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence-free survival between men undergoing delayed radical prostatectomy after a period of active surveillance with men undergoing immediate radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Of the 4,275 men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, 1,321 (31%) were managed with active surveillance, increasing from 13% in 2012 to 45% in 2020. The 5-year treatment-free probability for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance was 73% for Gleason Grade Group 1 and 57% for Grade Group 2 disease. More men undergoing a delayed radical prostatectomy had adverse pathology (46%) compared with immediate radical prostatectomy (32%, P < .001), yet short-term biochemical recurrence was similar between groups (log-rank test, P = .131). CONCLUSIONS: The use of active surveillance for men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer has increased markedly. Over half of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance remained free of treatment 5 years after diagnosis. Most men on active surveillance will not lose their window of cure and have similar short-term oncologic outcomes as men undergoing up-front treatment. Active surveillance is an oncologically safe option for appropriately selected men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Comparing Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy in Historical and Contemporary Practice.

PURPOSE: Modifications to surgical technique, particularly the widespread adoption of robotic surgery, have been proposed to improve functional recovery after prostate cancer surgery. However, rigorous comparison of men in historical vs contemporary practice to evaluate the cumulative effect of these changes on urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared prospectively collected patient-reported urinary and sexual function from historical (PROSTQA [Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction With Treatment Quality Assessment study], n=235) and contemporary (MUSIC-PRO [Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Patient Reported Outcome] registry, n=1,215) cohorts at the University of Michigan to understand whether modern techniques have resulted in functional improvements for men undergoing prostate cancer surgery. RESULTS: We found significant differences in baseline function, with better urinary (median [IQR]; 100 [93.8-100] vs 93.8 [85.5-100], P < .001) and sexual scores (median [IQR]; 83.3 [66.7-100] vs 74.4 [44.2-87.5], P < .001) prior to treatment in PROSTQA compared to MUSIC-PRO patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the pattern of urinary incontinence recovery after surgery from 6-24 months between groups (P = .14). However, men in the contemporary MUSIC-PRO group did have significantly better recovery of sexual function compared to men in the historical PROSTQA group (P < .0001). Further, we found that contemporary practice consists of men with more unfavorable demographic and clinical characteristics compared to historical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the widespread alterations in prostate cancer surgery over the past 2 decades have yielded improvements in sexual, but not urinary, function recovery.

Should Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Be the Standard of Care?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of transperineal prostate biopsy (TP-bx) to evaluate its potential role as the standard of care for prostate biopsy. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies have suggested no difference in prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate between TP-bx and transrectal biopsy (TR-bx) but have suggested potentially increased detection of anterior prostate tumors. Advances in anesthetic technique have obviated the need for sedation thus allowing TP-bx to become an office-based procedure, which in turn can decrease the overall cost of TP-bx. Furthermore, given the low rate of infectious complications after TP-bx, some have foregone peri-procedural antibiotics without a change in the rate of infectious complications. Recent procedural advances have made TP-bx a tolerable, office-based procedure. Given the similar diagnostic performance and the benefits for the patient and community, TP-bx should become the standard of care for prostate biopsy for most patients. Future efforts should address the barriers for more universal adoption.

Delayed radical prostatectomy after a period of active surveillance is not associated with the use of secondary treatments compared with immediate prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the use of secondary treatments in men with grade group (GG) 1 PC following a period of active surveillance (AS) compared with men undergoing immediate radical prostatectomy (RP) to evaluate what is potentially lost in terms of cancer control, if a patient trials AS and transitions to treatment. METHODS: We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry for men with GG1 PC undergoing RP from April 2012 to July 2018. Men were classified into groups based on time from diagnosis to RP: immediate (surgery within 1 year of diagnosis) and delayed RP (surgery >1 year after initiation of AS). Time to secondary treatment was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using the log-rank test. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was fit to assess the association between timing of RP and use of secondary treatments. A chi-squared test was used to assess the association between delayed RP and adverse pathology. RESULTS: We identified 1878 men that underwent an RP during the study period, of which 1489 (79%) underwent immediate RP and 389 (21%) underwent delayed RP. The incidence of adverse pathology was higher in men with delayed versus immediate RP (49% vs. 36%, p < 0.0001, respectively). However, we noted only a small absolute difference in the estimated 24-month secondary treatment-free probability between men with delayed versus immediate RP (93% and 96%, respectively). On multivariable analysis, delayed RP was associated with increased use of secondary treatments (hazard ratio = 1.94, 95% confidence interval = 1.23-3.06, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The use of secondary treatment after RP in men with GG1 PC undergoing immediate or delayed prostatectomy was rare. These data suggest that the burden of treatment is near equivalent in patients who progress to treatment on AS compared with those who underwent immediate RP.

The added influence of genomics and post-MRI confirmatory biopsy results to MRI results alone on medical decision making for men with favorable risk prostate cancer being considered for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We examined how the results of genomic classifier (GC) or post-magnetic resonance imaging confirmatory biopsy (pMRI-CBx) influenced management strategy for men with an MRI considering active surveillance (AS). METHODS: We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Among men with an MRI after the diagnostic biopsy (n = 1162) a subset also had GC (n = 126) or pMRI-CBx (n = 309). Results of MRI, GC, and pMRI-CBx were deemed reassuring (RA) or non-reassuring (Non-RA). We assess the association of the combination of test results obtained with the selection of AS. Proportions were compared with the Fisher's exact test. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit for an association of test results with the selection of AS. RESULTS: The results of pMRI-CBx tended to influence management decisions greater than that of GC, especially in situation where testing results were discordant with the MRI result. Fewer men with a RA MRI and non-RA pMRI-CBx where managed with AS compared with RA MRI alone (31% vs. 86%, p < 0.001). non-RA genomics did not seem to have the same influence on management as non-RA pMRI-CBx as a similar proportion of men with RA MRI and non-RA genomics were managed with AS compared with RA MRI alone (85% vs. 86%, p = 0.753). More men with non-RA MRI and RA pMRI-CBx were managed with AS compared with non-RA MRI alone (89% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). Alternatively, a similar proportion of men with non-RA MRI and RA genomics were managed with AS compared with non-RA MRI alone (42% vs. 40%, p > 0.999). In the multivariable models, pMRI-CBx results influenced the decision for AS versus treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and an MRI, the additional information provided by pMRI-CBx influenced the decision of AS versus treatment, while the addition of GC results were less influential.

Preoperative Prostate MRI Predictors of Urinary Continence Following Radical Prostatectomy.

Background Urinary continence after radical prostatectomy (RP) is an important determinant of patient quality of life. Anatomic measures at prostate MRI have been previously associated with continence outcomes, but their predictive ability and interrater agreement are unclear in comprehensive clinical models. Purpose To evaluate the predictive ability and interrater agreement of MRI-based anatomic measurements of post-RP continence when combined with clinical multivariable models. Materials and Methods In this retrospective cohort study, continence outcomes were evaluated in men who underwent RP from August 2015 to October 2019. Preoperative MRI-based anatomic measures were obtained retrospectively by four abdominal radiologists. Before participation, these radiologists completed measure-specific training. Logistic regression models were developed with clinical variables alone, MRI variables alone, and combined variables for predicting continence at 3, 6, and 12 months after RP; some patient data were missing at each time point. Interrater agreement of MRI variables was assessed by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results A total of 586 men were included (mean age ± standard deviation: 63 years ± 7). The proportion of patients with incontinence was 0.2% (one of 589) at baseline, 27% (145 of 529) at 3 months, 14% (63 of 465) at 6 months, and 9% (37 of 425) at 12 months. Longer coronal membranous urethra length (MUL) improved the odds of post-RP continence at all time points (odds ratio per 1 mm: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.80, 0.93], P < .001; 0.86 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.95], P = .003; and 0.79 [95% CI: 0.67, 0.91], P = .002, respectively) in models that incorporated both clinical and MRI predictors. No other MRI variables were predictive. Age and baseline urinary function score were the only other predictive clinical variables at every time point. Interrater agreement was moderate (ICC, 0.62) for MUL among readers with measure-specific prostate MRI training and poor among those without the training (ICC, 0.38). Conclusion Preoperative MRI-measured coronal membranous urethra length was an independent predictor of urinary continence after prostatectomy. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Exploring Variation in the Receipt of Recommended Active Surveillance for Men with Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer do not receive all the recommended testing. Reasons for variation in receipt are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We combined prospective registry data from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, a collaborative of 46 academic and community urology practices across Michigan, with insurance claims from 2014 to 2018 for men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer. We defined receipt of recommended surveillance according to the collaborative's low-intensity criteria as: annual prostate specific antigen testing and either magnetic resonance imaging or prostate biopsy every 3 years. We assessed receipt of recommended surveillance among men with ≥36 months of followup (246). We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the influence of the urologist, urologist and primary care provider visits, and patient demographic and clinical factors on variation in receipt. RESULTS: During 3 years of active surveillance, just over half of men (56.5%) received all recommended surveillance testing (69.9% annual prostate specific antigen testing, 72.8% magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy). We found 19% of the variation in receipt was attributed to individual urologists. While increasing provider visits were not significantly associated with receipt, older men were less likely to receive magnetic resonance imaging/biopsy (≥75 vs <55 years, adjusted odds ratio 0.07; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of men on active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer did not receive all recommended surveillance. While urologists substantially influenced receipt of recommended testing, exploring how to leverage patients and their visits with their primary care providers to positively influence receipt appears warranted.

Development and Validation of Models to Predict Pathological Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy in Regional and National Cohorts.

PURPOSE: Prediction models are recommended by national guidelines to support clinical decision making in prostate cancer. Existing models to predict pathological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP)-the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) models, Partin tables, and the Briganti nomogram-have been developed using data from tertiary care centers and may not generalize well to other settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from a regional cohort (Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative [MUSIC]) were used to develop models to predict extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), lymph node invasion (LNI), and nonorgan-confined disease (NOCD) in patients undergoing RP. The MUSIC models were compared against the MSK models, Partin tables, and Briganti nomogram (for LNI) using data from a national cohort (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] registry). RESULTS: We identified 7,491 eligible patients in the SEER registry. The MUSIC model had good discrimination (SEER AUC EPE: 0.77; SVI: 0.80; LNI: 0.83; NOCD: 0.77) and was well calibrated. While the MSK models had similar discrimination to the MUSIC models (SEER AUC EPE: 0.76; SVI: 0.80; LNI: 0.84; NOCD: 0.76), they overestimated the risk of EPE, LNI, and NOCD. The Partin tables had inferior discrimination (SEER AUC EPE: 0.67; SVI: 0.76; LNI: 0.69; NOCD: 0.72) as compared to other models. The Briganti LNI nomogram had an AUC of 0.81 in SEER but overestimated the risk. CONCLUSIONS: New models developed using the MUSIC registry outperformed existing models and should be considered as potential replacements for the prediction of pathological outcomes in prostate cancer.

Gold nanoshell-localized photothermal ablation of prostate tumors in a clinical pilot device study.

Biocompatible gold nanoparticles designed to absorb light at wavelengths of high tissue transparency have been of particular interest for biomedical applications. The ability of such nanoparticles to convert absorbed near-infrared light to heat and induce highly localized hyperthermia has been shown to be highly effective for photothermal cancer therapy, resulting in cell death and tumor remission in a multitude of preclinical animal models. Here we report the initial results of a clinical trial in which laser-excited gold-silica nanoshells (GSNs) were used in combination with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion imaging to focally ablate low-intermediate-grade tumors within the prostate. The overall goal is to provide highly localized regional control of prostate cancer that also results in greatly reduced patient morbidity and improved functional outcomes. This pilot device study reports feasibility and safety data from 16 cases of patients diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. After GSN infusion and high-precision laser ablation, patients underwent multiparametric MRI of the prostate at 48 to 72 h, followed by postprocedure mpMRI/ultrasound targeted fusion biopsies at 3 and 12 mo, as well as a standard 12-core systematic biopsy at 12 mo. GSN-mediated focal laser ablation was successfully achieved in 94% (15/16) of patients, with no significant difference in International Prostate Symptom Score or Sexual Health Inventory for Men observed after treatment. This treatment protocol appears to be feasible and safe in men with low- or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer without serious complications or deleterious changes in genitourinary function.

Available evidence on HIFU for focal treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common oncologic disease among men. Radical treatment with curative intent provides good oncological results for PCa survivors, although definitive therapy is associated with significant number of serious side-effects. In modern-era of medicine tissue-sparing techniques, such as focal HIFU, have been proposed for PCa patients in order to provide cancer control equivalent to the standard-of-care procedures while reducing morbidities and complications. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence about focal HIFU therapy as a primary treatment for localized PCa. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of focal HIFU therapy in the MEDLINE database (PROSPERO: CRD42021235581). Articles published in the English language between 2010 and 2020 with more than 50 patients were included. RESULTS: Clinically significant in-field recurrence and out-of-field progression were detected to 22% and 29% PCa patients, respectively. Higher ISUP grade group, more positive cores at biopsy and bilateral disease were identified as the main risk factors for disease recurrence. The most common strategy for recurrence management was definitive therapy. Six months after focal HIFU therapy 98% of patients were totally continent and 80% of patients retained sufficient erections for sexual intercourse. The majority of complications presented in the early postoperative period and were classified as low-grade. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights that focal HIFU therapy appears to be a safe procedure, while short-term cancer control rate is encouraging. Though, second-line treatment or active surveillance seems to be necessary in a significant number of patients.

Testing-Related Health Impact of Transrectal and Transperineal Prostate Biopsy as Assessed by Health Utilities.

PURPOSE: We sought to assess the temporary health-related quality of life (health utility) of nonmagnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a 2-arm, prospectively enrolled, observational, patient-reported outcomes study, performed between June 2019 and November 2020 at a single academic medical center. Inclusion criteria were men undergoing an outpatient ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (transrectal or transperineal approach, without magnetic resonance imaging guidance). Patients with a history of Gleason 7+ prostate cancer were excluded. Validated survey instruments were utilized to assess baseline (Short Form 12) and testing-related (Testing Morbidities Index [TMI]) health utility states. The primary outcome was the TMI summary testing-related quality-of-life score (summary utility score; scale: 0=death and 1=perfect health). The TMI is comprised of 7 domains, spanning before, during and after testing experiences. Each domain is scored from 1 (no health impact) to 5 (extreme health impact). Testing-related quality-of-life measures were compared with Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Enrollment rates were 80% (60/75; transrectal) and 86% (60/70; transperineal). All patients (120/120) completed the questionnaire. The TMI summary score for transrectal biopsy was not significantly different from transperineal biopsy (0.86, 95% CI 0.84-0.88 vs 0.83, 95% CI 0.81-0.85; p=0.0774). The largest difference in the testing experiences was related to intraprocedural pain (transrectal biopsy: 2.3, 95% CI 2.1-2.4; transperineal biopsy: 2.9, 95% CI 2.6-3.1; p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsies have similar effect on temporary health-related quality-of-life. Transient differences relate to intraprocedural pain. These data can inform clinical decision making and future cost-utility models.

Role of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer.

The use of multiparametric MRI has been hastened under expanding, novel indications for its use in the diagnostic and management pathway of men with prostate cancer. This has helped drive a large body of the literature describing its evolving role over the last decade. Despite this, prostate cancer remains the only solid organ malignancy routinely diagnosed with random sampling. Herein, we summarize the components of multiparametric MRI and interpretation, and present a critical review of the current literature supporting is use in prostate cancer detection, risk stratification, and management.

Making a case "for" focal therapy of the prostate in intermediate risk prostate cancer: current perspective and ongoing trials.

Focal therapy is growing as an alternative management options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Parallel to the increasing popularity of active surveillance (AS) as a treatment for low-risk disease, there has been an increased interest towards providing focal therapy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. Focal therapy can act as a logical "middle ground" in patients who seek treatment while minimizing potential side effects of definitive whole-gland treatment. The aim of the current review is to define the rationale of focal therapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and highlight the importance of patient selection in focal therapy candidacy.

Delayed Radical Prostatectomy is Not Associated with Adverse Oncologic Outcomes: Implications for Men Experiencing Surgical Delay Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The 2019 novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has forced many health care organizations to divert efforts and resources to emergent patient care, delaying many elective oncologic surgeries. We investigated an association between delay in radical prostatectomy and oncologic outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of men with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer in the National Cancer Database undergoing radical prostatectomy from 2010 to 2016. Immediate radical prostatectomy was defined as radical prostatectomy within 3 months of diagnosis, while delayed radical prostatectomy was analyzed in 3-month intervals up to 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to test for associations between levels of delayed radical prostatectomy and outcomes of interest (adverse pathology, upgrading on radical prostatectomy, node positive disease and post-radical prostatectomy secondary treatments) compared with men undergoing immediate radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: We identified 128,062 men with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. After adjustment, we did not appreciate a significant difference in odds of adverse pathology, upgrading, node positive disease or post-radical prostatectomy secondary treatments between men treated with immediate radical prostatectomy and any level of delay up to 12 months. Subgroup analysis of men with Grade Group 4 and 5 prostate cancer did not demonstrate an association between delayed radical prostatectomy and worse oncologic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In the National Cancer Database delayed radical prostatectomy was not associated with early adverse oncologic outcomes at radical prostatectomy. These results may provide reassurance to patients and urologists balancing care in the current pandemic.

Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging with or without Biopsy Impacts Decision Making in Newly Diagnosed Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We investigated how magnetic resonance imaging and post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy impact decision making in men considering active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative with newly diagnosed favorable risk prostate cancer. Following diagnostic biopsy the men were classified into 3 groups, including group 1-no magnetic resonance imaging, group 2-magnetic resonance imaging only and group 3-magnetic resonance imaging/post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy. For the purposes of counseling and shared decision making magnetic resonance imaging results were deemed reassuring (PI-RADS™ [Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System] 3 or less) or nonreassuring (PI-RADS 4 or greater). Similarly, if the diagnostic biopsy was GG (Grade Group) 1, post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy results were deemed nonreassuring if there was any amount of GG 2 or greater. If the diagnostic biopsy was GG 2, post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy results were deemed nonreassuring if more than 3 cores were GG 2, or there was more than 50% GG 2 in any individual core or any volume of GG 3 or greater. RESULTS: Of 1,461 men with favorable risk prostate cancer 1,223 (84%) did not undergo magnetic resonance imaging, 157 (11%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging alone and 81 (6%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging and post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy. Of the men who underwent magnetic resonance imaging alone more with reassuring findings elected active surveillance than men with nonreassuring or magnetic resonance imaging findings (74% vs 35% and 42%, respectively). The highest rate of active surveillance was noted in men with reassuring post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy regardless of whether magnetic resonance imaging was reassuring or nonreassuring (93% and 96%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging and post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy drive decision making in men with newly diagnosed, favorable risk prostate cancer. Post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsy is a stronger driver of decision making than magnetic resonance imaging alone. This was demonstrated by the more than 90% of men with reassuring post-magnetic resonance imaging biopsies who elected active surveillance regardless of magnetic resonance imaging results.

Implementation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging technology for evaluation of patients with suspicion for prostate cancer in the clinical practice setting.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of implementing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion technology on biopsy and prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates in men presenting with clinical suspicion for PCa in the clinical practice setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a review of 1 808 consecutive men referred for elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level between 2011 and 2014. The study population was divided into two groups based on whether MRI was used as a risk stratification tool. Univariable and multivariable analyses of biopsy rates and overall and clinically significant PCa detection rates between groups were performed. RESULTS: The MRI and PSA-only groups consisted of 1 020 and 788 patients, respectively. A total of 465 patients (45.6%) in the MRI group and 442 (56.1%) in the PSA-only group underwent biopsy, corresponding to an 18.7% decrease in the proportion of patients receiving biopsy in the MRI group (P < 0.001). Overall PCa (56.8% vs 40.7%; P < 0.001) and clinically significant PCa detection (47.3% vs 31.0%; P < 0.001) was significantly higher in the MRI vs the PSA-only group. In logistic regression analyses, the odds of overall PCa detection (odds ratio [OR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-2.35; P < 0.001) and clinically significant PCa detection (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.48-2.80; P < 0.001) were higher in the MRI than in the PSA-only group after adjusting for clinically relevant PCa variables. CONCLUSION: Among men presenting with clinical suspicion for PCa, addition of MRI increases detection of clinically significant cancers while reducing prostate biopsy rates when implemented in a clinical practice setting.

Beyond transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: available techniques and approaches.

OBJECTIVES: Recent advances have led to the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone or with fusion to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images for guiding biopsy of the prostate. Our group sought to develop consensus recommendations regarding MRI-guided prostate biopsy based on currently available literature and expert opinion. METHODS: The published literature on the subject of MRI-guided prostate biopsy was reviewed using standard search terms and synthesized and analyzed by four different subgroups from among the authors. The literature was grouped into four categories-MRI-guided biopsy platforms, robotic MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy, template mapping biopsy and transrectal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy. Consensus recommendations were developed using the Oxford Center for Evidence Based Medicine criteria. RESULTS: There is limited high level evidence available on the subject of MRI-guided prostate biopsy. MRI guidance with or without TRUS fusion can lead to fewer unnecessary biopsies, help identify high-risk (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4) cancers that might have been missed on standard TRUS biopsy and identify cancers in the anterior prostate. There is no apparent significant difference between MRI biopsy platforms. Template mapping biopsy is perhaps the most accurate method of assessing volume and grade of tumor but is accompanied by higher incidence of side effects compared to TRUS biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies are feasible and better than traditional ultrasound-guided biopsies for detecting high-risk prostate cancer and anterior lesions. Judicious use of MRI-guided biopsy could enhance diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer while limiting diagnosis of insignificant cancer.