Intraoperative margin assessment during radical prostatectomy: is microscopy frozen in time or ready for digital defrost?

Intraoperative frozen section (IFS) is used with the intention to improve functional and oncological outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). High resource requirements of IFS techniques such as NeuroSAFE may preclude widespread adoption, even if there are benefits to patients. Recent advances in fresh-tissue microscopic digital imaging technologies may offer an attractive alternative, and there is a growing body of evidence regarding these technologies. In this narrative review, we discuss some of the familiar limitations of IFS and compare these to the attractive counterpoints of modern digital imaging technologies such as the speed and ease of image generation, the locality of equipment within (or near) the operating room, the ability to maintain tissue integrity, and digital transfer of images. Confocal laser microscopy (CLM) is the modality most frequently reported in the literature for margin assessment during RP. We discuss several imitations and obstacles to widespread dissemination of digital imaging technologies. Among these, we consider how the 'en-face' margin perspective will challenge urologists and pathologists to understand afresh the meaning of positive margin significance. As a part of this, discussions on how to describe, categorize, react to, and evaluate these technologies are needed to improve patient outcomes. Limitations of this review include its narrative structure and that the evidence base in this field is relatively immature but developing at pace.

Prostagram magnetic resonance imaging in a screening population: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System or Likert?

OBJECTIVE: To compare biopsy recommendation rates and accuracy of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, version 2 (PI-RADSv2) with the Likert scale for detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer in men screened within the Imperial Prostate 1 Prostate Cancer Screening Trial Using Imaging (IP1-PROSTAGRAM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men aged 50-69 years were screened with Prostagram MRI. Scans were prospectively reported using both PI-RADSv2 (excluding dynamic contrast-enhanced sequence score) and 5-point Likert scores by expert uro-radiologists. Systematic and targeted transperineal biopsy was recommended if the scan was scored ≥ 3, based on either reporting system. The proportion of patients recommended for biopsy and detection rates for Grade Groups (GGs) 1 and ≥ 2 were compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to compare performance. RESULTS: A total of 406 men underwent Prostagram MRI. The median (interquartile range) age and prostate-specific antigen level were 57 (53-61) years and 0.91 (0.56-1.74) ng/mL, respectively. At MRI score ≥ 3, more patients were recommended for biopsy based on Likert criteria (94/406; 23%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.2%-27.6%) compared to PI-RADSv2 (72/406; 18%, 95% CI 14.2%-21.9%; P = 0.03). For MRI scores ≥ 4, PI-RADSv2 and Likert scales led to 43/406 (11%, 95% CI 7.9%-14.1%) and 35/406 (9%, 95% CI 6.2%-11.9%) men recommended for biopsy (P = 0.40). For GG ≥ 2 detection, PIRADSv2 and Likert detected 22% (95% CI 11.4%-30.8%, 14/72) and 16% (95% CI 9.5%-25.3%, 15/94), respectively (P = 0.56). For GG1 cancers detection these were 11% (95% CI 4.3%-19.6%, seven of 72) vs 11% (95% CI 4.7%-17.8%, nine of 94; P = 1.00). The accuracy of PI-RADSv2 and Likert scale was similar (area under the ROC curve 0.64 vs 0.65, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: In reporting non-contrast-enhanced Prostagram MRI in a screening population, the PI-RADSv2 and Likert scoring systems were equally accurate; however, Likert scale use led to more men undergoing biopsy without a subsequent increase in significant cancer detection rates. To improve reporting of Prostagram MRI, either the PI-RADSv2 or a modified Likert scale or a standalone scoring system should be developed.

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.

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.

Bench to Bedside Development of [18F]Fluoromethyl-(1,2-2H4)choline ([18F]D4-FCH).

Malignant transformation is characterised by aberrant phospholipid metabolism of cancers, associated with the upregulation of choline kinase alpha (CHKα). Due to the metabolic instability of choline radiotracers and the increasing use of late-imaging protocols, we developed a more stable choline radiotracer, [18F]fluoromethyl-[1,2-2H4]choline ([18F]D4-FCH). [18F]D4-FCH has improved protection against choline oxidase, the key choline catabolic enzyme, via a 1H/2D isotope effect, together with fluorine substitution. Due to the promising mechanistic and safety profiles of [18F]D4-FCH in vitro and preclinically, the radiotracer has transitioned to clinical development. [18F]D4-FCH is a safe positron emission tomography (PET) tracer, with a favourable radiation dosimetry profile for clinical imaging. [18F]D4-FCH PET/CT in lung and prostate cancers has shown highly heterogeneous intratumoral distribution and large lesion variability. Treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients elicited mixed responses on PET at 12-16 weeks despite predominantly stable radiological appearances. The sum of the weighted tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs-wsum) was associated with the duration of survival.

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.

Chromatin conformation changes in peripheral blood can detect prostate cancer and stratify disease risk groups.

BACKGROUND: Current diagnostic blood tests for prostate cancer (PCa) are unreliable for the early stage disease, resulting in numerous unnecessary prostate biopsies in men with benign disease and false reassurance of negative biopsies in men with PCa. Predicting the risk of PCa is pivotal for making an informed decision on treatment options as the 5-year survival rate in the low-risk group is more than 95% and most men would benefit from surveillance rather than active treatment. Three-dimensional genome architecture and chromosome structures undergo early changes during tumourigenesis both in tumour and in circulating cells and can serve as a disease biomarker. METHODS: In this prospective study we screened whole blood of newly diagnosed, treatment naïve PCa patients (n = 140) and cancer-free controls (n = 96) for the presence of 14,241 chromosomal loops in the loci of 425 genes. RESULTS: We have detected specific chromosome conformation changes in the loci of ETS1, MAP3K14, SLC22A3 and CASP2 genes in peripheral blood from PCa patients yielding PCa detection with 80% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Further analysis between PCa risk groups yielded prognostic validation sets consisting of HSD3B2, VEGFC, APAF1, BMP6, ERG, MSR1, MUC1, ACAT1 and DAPK1 genes that achieved 80% sensitivity and 93% specificity stratifying high-risk category 3 vs low risk category 1 and 84% sensitivity and 89% specificity stratifying high risk category 3 vs intermediate risk category 2 disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate specific chromosome conformations in the blood of PCa patients that allow PCa diagnosis and risk stratification with high sensitivity and specificity.

Is the Toxicity of Salvage Prostatectomy Related to the Primary Prostate Cancer Therapy Received?

PURPOSE: To compare the toxicity profile and oncological outcome of salvage radical prostatectomy following focal therapy versus salvage radical prostatectomy after radiation therapies (external beam radiation therapy or brachytherapy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data concerning all men undergoing salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after either focal therapy, external beam radiation therapy or brachytherapy were retrospectively collected from 4 high volume surgical centers. The primary outcome measure of the study was toxicity of salvage radical prostatectomy characterized by any 30-day postoperative Clavien-Dindo complication rate, 12-month continence rate and 12-month potency rate. The secondary outcome was oncological outcome after salvage radical prostatectomy including positive margin rate and 12-month biochemical recurrence rate. Biochemical recurrence was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and significant differences were calculated using a log rank test. Median followup was 29.5 months. RESULTS: Between April 2007 and September 2018, 185 patients underwent salvage radical prostatectomy of whom 95 had salvage radical prostatectomy after focal therapy and 90 had salvage radical prostatectomy after radiation therapy (external beam radiation therapy or brachytherapy). Salvage radical prostatectomy after radiation therapy was associated with a significantly higher 30-day Clavien-Dindo I-IV complication rate (34% vs 5%, p <0.001). At 12 months following surgery, patients undergoing salvage radical prostatectomy after focal therapy had significantly better continence (83% pad-free vs 49%) while potency outcomes were similar (14% vs 11%). Men undergoing salvage radical prostatectomy after radiation therapy had a significantly higher stage and grade of disease together with a higher positive surgical margin rate (37% vs 13%, p=0.001). The 3-year biochemical recurrence after focal therapy was 35% compared to 32% after radiation therapy (p=0.76). In multivariable analysis, men undergoing salvage radical prostatectomy after focal therapy experienced a higher risk of biochemical recurrence (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16-0.82, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study demonstrates the toxicity of salvage radical prostatectomy in terms of perioperative complications and long-term urinary continence recovery is dependent on initial primary prostate cancer therapy received with men undergoing salvage radical prostatectomy after focal therapy experiencing lower postoperative complication rates and better urinary continence outcomes.

A Comparison of Prostate Cancer Detection between Visual Estimation (Cognitive Registration) and Image Fusion (Software Registration) Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: We compared clinically significant prostate cancer detection by visual estimation and image fusion targeted transperineal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter study included patients with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions undergoing visual estimation or image fusion targeted transperineal biopsy (April 2017-March 2020). Propensity score matching was performed using demographics (age and ethnicity), clinical features (prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, prostate specific antigen density and digital rectal examination), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging variables (number of lesions, PI-RADS® score, index lesion diameter, whether the lesion was diffuse and radiological T stage) and biopsy factors (number of cores, operator experience and anesthetic type). Matched groups were compared overall and by operator grade, PI-RADS score, lesion multiplicity, prostate volume and anesthetic type using targeted-only and targeted plus systematic histology. Multiple clinically significant prostate cancer thresholds were evaluated (primary: Gleason ≥3+4). RESULTS: A total of 1,071 patients with a median age of 67.3 years (IQR 61.3-72.4), median prostate specific antigen of 7.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.3-11.2) and 1,430 total lesions underwent targeted-only biopsies (visual estimation: 372 patients, 494 lesions; image fusion: 699 patients, 936 lesions). A total of 770 patients with a median age of 67.4 years (IQR 61-72.1), median prostate specific antigen of 7.1 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.6) and 919 total lesions underwent targeted plus systematic biopsies (visual estimation: 271 patients, 322 lesions; image fusion: 499 patients, 597 lesions). Matched comparisons demonstrated no overall difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection between visual estimation and image fusion (primary: targeted-only 54% vs 57.4%, p=0.302; targeted plus systematic 51.2% vs 58.2%, p=0.123). Senior urologists had significantly higher detection rates using image fusion (primary: targeted-only 45.4% vs 63.7%, p=0.001; targeted plus systematic 39.4% vs 64.5%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found no overall difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection, although image fusion may be superior in experienced hands.

Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate®500) (March/2007-November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6-12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. RESULTS: 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours.

Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy to Transperineal Template Mapping Biopsies Stratified by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score in the PROMIS Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the performance of transrectal ultrasound guided systematic and transperineal template mapping biopsies with a 5 mm sampling frame stratified by the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert score in the PROMIS (Prostate MR Imaging Study). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biopsy naïve men due to undergo prostate biopsy for elevated prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and transperineal template mapping and transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsies, which were performed and reported while blinded to other test results. Clinically significant prostate cancer was primarily defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater, or a maximum cancer core length of 6 mm or more of any grade. It was secondarily defined as Gleason 3 + 4 or greater, or a maximum cancer core length of 4 mm or more of any grade. RESULTS: In 41 months 740 men were recruited at a total of 11 centers, of whom 576 underwent all 3 tests. Eight of the 150 men (5.1%) with a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score of 1-2 had any Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy. Of the 75 men in whom transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy showed Gleason 3 + 3 of any maximum cancer core length 61 (81%) had Gleason 3 + 4, 8 (11%) had Gleason 4 + 3 and 0 (0%) had Gleason 4 + 5 or greater disease. For definition 1 (clinically significant prostate cancer) transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy sensitivity remained stable and low across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert scores of 35% to 52%. For definition 2 (clinically significant prostate cancer and any cancer) sensitivity increased with higher multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. The negative predictive value varied due to varying disease prevalence but for all cancer thresholds it declined with increasing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert scores 1-2 transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy revealed Gleason 3 + 4 disease in only 1 of 20 men. Further, for any clinically significant prostate cancer definition transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy had poor sensitivity and variable but a low negative predictive value across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. Men who undergo transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy without targeting in the setting of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score of 3 to 5 should be advised to undergo repeat (targeted) biopsy.

Prostate Specific Antigen Criteria to Diagnose Failure of Cancer Control following Focal Therapy of Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound.

PURPOSE: We determined whether prostate specific antigen criteria after focal high intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostate cancer could diagnose treatment failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 598 patients in a prospectively maintained national database underwent focal high intensity focused ultrasound with a Sonablate® 500 device from March 2007 to November 2016. Followup consisted of 3-month clinic visits and prostate specific antigen testing in year 1 with prostate specific antigen measurement every 6 to 12 months and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with biopsy for magnetic resonance imaging suspicious for recurrence. Treatment failure was considered any secondary treatment, tumor recurrence with Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastasis and/or prostate cancer related mortality. To diagnose failure we evaluated a series of nadir + x thresholds with x values of 0.1 to 2.0 ng/ml. RESULTS: Median patient age was 65 years (IQR 60-71) and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 6-9). Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease was present in 80% of cases. Tumors were radiologically staged as T1c-T2c in 522 of the 596 patients (88%) and as T3a/b in 74 (12.4%). Baseline median prostate specific antigen was 7.80 ng/ml (IQR 5.96-10.45) in failed cases and 6.77 ng/ml (IQR 2.65-9.71) in cases without failure. Optimal performance according to the Youden index to indicate the most appropriate nadir + x at all analyzed time points at 3-month intervals showed that nadir + 1.0 ng/ml would have 27.3% to 100% sensitivity and 39.4% to 85.6% specificity depending on the time of evaluation in the first 3 years. Nadir + 1.5 ng/ml showed 18.2% to 100% sensitivity and 60.6% to 91.8% specificity with nadir + 2.0 ng/ml leading to similar sensitivity and specificity ranges. Nadir + 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and nadir + 1.5 ng/ml at 24 and 36 months had 100% sensitivity and 96.1% to 100% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Following focal high intensity focused ultrasound a prostate specific antigen nadir of 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and 1.5 ng/ml at 24 to 36 months might be used to triage men requiring magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. These data need prospective validation.

Understanding virtual urology clinics: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review to identify the clinical, fiscal and environmental evidence on the use of urological telehealth and/or virtual clinic (VC) strategies, and to highlight research gaps in this rapidly evolving field. METHODS: Our PROSPERO-registered (CRD42019151946) systematic search of Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Review Database was performed to identify original research articles pertaining to adult urology telehealth or VC strategies. Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment was performed according to the Cochrane 2.0 RoB tool or the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for non-randomized studies. RESULTS: A total of 5813 participants were included from 18 original articles (two randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 10 prospective studies, six retrospective studies). Urology sub-specialities comprised: uro-oncology (n = 6); general urology (n = 8); endo-urology (n = 2); and lower urinary tract symptoms and/or incontinence (n = 2). Across all sub-specialties, prospective studies using VCs reported a primary median (interquartile range [IQR]) VC discharge rate of 16.6 (14.7-29.8)% and a primary median (IQR) face-to-face (FTF) clinic referral rate of 32.4 (15.5-53.3)%. Direct cost analysis demonstrated median (IQR) annual cost savings of £56 232 (£46 260-£61 116). Grade II and IIIb complications were reported in two acute ureteric colic studies, with rates of 0.20% (3/1534) and 0.13% (2/1534), respectively. The annual carbon footprint avoided ranged from 0.7 to 4.35 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions, depending on the mode of transport used. Patient satisfaction was inconsistently reported, and assessments lacked prospective evaluation using validated questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Urology VCs are a promising new platform which can offer clinical, financial and environmental benefits to support an increasing urological referral burden. Further prospective evidence is required across urological sub-specialties to confirm equivalency and safety against traditional FTF assessment.

Likert vs PI-RADS v2: a comparison of two radiological scoring systems for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical validity and utility of Likert assessment and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 in the detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 489 pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scans in consecutive patients were subject to prospective paired reporting using both Likert and PI-RADS v2 by expert uro-radiologists. Patients were offered biopsy for any Likert or PI-RADS score ≥4 or a score of 3 with PSA density ≥0.12 ng/mL/mL. Utility was evaluated in terms of proportion biopsied, and proportion of clinically significant and insignificant cancer detected (both overall and on a 'per score' basis). In those patients biopsied, the overall accuracy of each system was assessed by calculating total and partial area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The primary threshold of significance was Gleason ≥3 + 4. Secondary thresholds of Gleason ≥4 + 3, Ahmed/UCL1 (Gleason ≥4 + 3 or maximum cancer core length [CCL] ≥6 or total CCL≥6) and Ahmed/UCL2 (Gleason ≥3 + 4 or maximum CCL ≥4 or total CCL ≥6) were also used. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 66 (60-72) years and the median (IQR) prostate-specific antigen level was 7 (5-10) ng/mL. A similar proportion of men met the biopsy threshold and underwent biopsy in both groups (83.8% [Likert] vs 84.8% [PI-RADS v2]; P = 0.704). The Likert system predicted more clinically significant cancers than PI-RADS across all disease thresholds. Rates of insignificant cancers were comparable in each group. ROC analysis of biopsied patients showed that, although both scoring systems performed well as predictors of significant cancer, Likert scoring was superior to PI-RADS v2, exhibiting higher total and partial areas under the ROC curve. CONCLUSIONS: Both scoring systems demonstrated good diagnostic performance, with similar rates of decision to biopsy. Overall, Likert was superior by all definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer. It has the advantages of being flexible, intuitive and allowing inclusion of clinical data. However, its use should only be considered once radiologists have developed sufficient experience in reporting prostate mpMRI.

Evaluation of functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) procedure in men with primary localized, non-metastatic prostate cancer: results from the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry.

OBJECTIVES: To assess change in functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment compared with outcomes after one focal HIFU treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre study (2005-2016), 821 men underwent focal HIFU for localized non-metastatic prostate cancer. The patient-reported outcome measures of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage and erectile function (EF) score were prospectively collected for up to 3 years. To be included in the study, completion of at least one follow-up questionnaire was required. The primary outcome was comparison of change in functional outcomes between baseline and follow-up after one focal HIFU procedure vs after a second focal HIFU procedure, using IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 821 men, 654 underwent one focal HIFU procedure and 167 underwent a second focal HIFU procedure. A total of 355 (54.3%) men undergoing one focal HIFU procedure and 65 (38.9%) with a second focal HIFU procedure returned follow-up questionnaires, respectively. The mean age and prostate-specific antigen level were 66.4 and 65.6 years, and 7.9 and 8.4 ng/mL, respectively. After one focal HIFU treatment, the mean change in IPSS was -0.03 (P = 0.02) and in IIEF (EF score) it was -0.4 (P = 0.02) at 1-2 years, with no subsequent decline. Absolute rates of erectile dysfunction increased from 9.9% to 20.8% (P = 0.08), leak-free continence decreased from 77.9% to 72.8% (P = 0.06) and pad-free continence from 98.6% to 94.8% (P = 0.07) at 1-2 years, respectively. IPSS prior to second focal HIFU treatment compared to baseline IPSS prior to first focal HIFU treatment was lower by -1.3 (P = 0.02), but mean IPSS change was +1.4 at 1-2 years (P = 0.03) and +1.2 at 2-3 years (P = 0.003) after the second focal HIFU treatment. The mean change in EF score after the second focal HIFU treatment was -0.2 at 1-2 years (P = 0.60) and -0.5 at 2-3 years (P = 0.10), with 17.8% and 6.2% of men with new erectile dysfunction. The rate of new pad use was 1.8% at 1-2 years and 2.6% at 2-3 years. CONCLUSION: A second focal HIFU procedure causes minor detrimental effects on urinary function and EF. These data can be used to counsel patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer prior to considering HIFU therapy.

Use of Imaging to Optimise Prostate Cancer Tumour Volume Assessment for Focal Therapy Planning.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rapid advances in imaging of the prostate have facilitated the development of focal therapy and provided a non-invasive method of estimating tumour volume. Focal therapy relies on an accurate estimate of tumour volume for patient selection and treatment planning so that the optimal energy dose can be delivered to the target area(s) of the prostate while minimising toxicity to surrounding structures. This review provides an overview of different imaging modalities which may be used to optimise tumour volume assessment and critically evaluates the published evidence for each modality. RECENT FINDINGS: Multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) has become the standard tool for patient selection and guiding focal therapy treatment. The current evidence suggests that mp-MRI may underestimate tumour volume, although there is a large variability in results. There remain significant methodological challenges associated with pathological processing and accurate co-registration of histopathological data with mp-MRI. Advances in different ultrasound modalities are showing promise but there has been limited research into tumour volume estimation. The role of PSMA PET/CT is still evolving and further investigation is needed to establish if this is a viable technique for prostate tumour volumetric assessment. mp-MRI provides the necessary tumour volume information required for selecting patients and guiding focal therapy treatment. The potential for underestimation of tumour volume should be taken into account and an additional margin applied to ensure adequate treatment coverage. At present, there are no other viable image-based alternatives although advances in new technologies may refine volume estimations in the future.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping Biopsies in the PICTURE Study.

PURPOSE: Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy is an increasingly used method of procuring tissue from men with suspected prostate cancer. We report patient related outcome measures and adverse events in men in the PICTURE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01492270) who underwent this diagnostic test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 249 men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy as a validation study. Functional outcomes before and after transperineal template prostate mapping were prospectively collected and recorded with questionnaires, including the I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), the I-PSS-QoL (Quality of Life), the IIEF-15 (International Index of Erectile Function-15) and the EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) urinary function. RESULTS: Mean age was 62 years, median prostate specific antigen was 6.8 ng/ml and median gland size was 37 ml. At transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy a median of 49 cores (IQR 40-55) were taken. Mean time to complete the post-procedure patient related outcome measure questionnaires was 46 days. Adverse events included post-procedure acute urinary retention in 24% of patients, rectal pain in 26% and perineal pain in 41%. Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy resulted in a statistically significant increase in scores on the I-PSS from 10.9 to 11.8 (p = 0.024) and the I-PSS-QoL from 1.57 to 1.76 (p = 0.03). The IIEF-15 erectile function score decreased by 23.2% from 47.7 to 38.7 (p <0.001). Significant deterioration was noted in all 5 of IIEF-15 functional domains, including erectile and orgasmic function, sexual desire, and intercourse and overall satisfaction (p <0.001). EPIC urinary scores showed no overall change from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy causes a high urinary retention rate and a detrimental impact on genitourinary functional outcomes, including deterioration in urinary flow and sexual function. Our findings can be used to ensure adequate counseling about transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. The results point to a need for strategies such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies to minimize the harms of transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy.