Randomized Trial of Transverse vs Vertical Extraction Site Incision After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Incisional hernias are a frequent complication following robotic radical prostatectomy. Observational data in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy suggest that transverse closure resulted in lower hernia rates than vertical closure. We sought to compare the incidence of incisional hernia after robotic radical prostatectomy after vertical and transverse extraction site closure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a clinically integrated, crossover, cluster randomized trial at a single tertiary referral center (January 2016-September 2021) comparing the rate of hernia after transverse vs vertical extraction site excision in 1356 patients treated with minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. The primary outcome was between-group incidence of incisional hernia within 15 months of prostatectomy defined by physical examination and self-reported patient surveys. RESULTS: Overall, 197 (20%) patients developed an incisional hernia within 15 months, 797 did not have an incisional hernia within this period, and 362 had missing outcome data regarding incisional hernia. We found no significant difference in hernia rates between the 2 incision types (absolute between-group difference 1.8%; 95% CI -3.4%, 6.6%; P = .5) in the primary analysis or in the 3 sensitivity analyses. Notably, because of the inclusive definition of hernia used, these data cannot be used as an estimate of the true prevalence of incisional hernia. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should choose the incision and closure approach they are most comfortable with when extracting specimens. Studies of modifications to the surgical technique are best conducted as randomized comparisons, and the clinically integrated, crossover, cluster randomized trial allows large trials to be completed at a single center and at low cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01407263.

Microsatellite Instability, Tumor Mutational Burden, and Response to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Patients with Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with microsatellite instability high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) and high tumor mutational burden (TMB-H) prostate cancers are candidates for pembrolizumab. We define the genomic features, clinical course, and response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in patients with MSI-H/dMMR and TMB-H prostate cancers without MSI (TMB-H/MSS). METHODS: We sequenced 3,244 tumors from 2,257 prostate cancer patients. MSI-H/dMMR prostate cancer was defined as MSIsensor score ≥10 or MSIsensor score ≥3 and <10 with a deleterious MMR alteration. TMB-H was defined as ≥10 mutations/megabase. PSA50 and RECIST responses were assigned. Overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were compared using log rank test. RESULTS: 63 (2.8%) men had MSI-H/dMMR and 33 (1.5%) had TMB-H/MSS prostate cancers. Patients with MSI-H/dMMR and TMB-H/MSS tumors more commonly presented with grade group 5 and metastatic disease at diagnosis. MSI-H/dMMR tumors had higher TMB, indel and neoantigen burden compared with TMB-H/MSS. 27 patients with MSI-H/dMMR and 8 patients with TMB-H/MSS tumors received ICB, none of whom harbored POLE mutations. 45% of MSI-H/dMMR patients had a RECIST response and 65% had a PSA50 response. No TMB-H/MSS patient had a RECIST response and 50% had a PSA50 response. rPFS tended to be longer in MSI-H/dMMR patients than in TMB-H/MSS patients who received immunotherapy. Pronounced differences in genomics, TMB or MSIsensor score were not detected between MSI-H/dMMR responders and non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: MSI-H/dMMR prostate cancers have greater TMB, indel and neoantigen burden compared with TMB-H/MSS prostate cancers, and these differences may contribute to more profound and durable responses to ICB.

Neoadjuvant Exercise Therapy in Prostate Cancer: A Phase 1, Decentralized Nonrandomized ControlledTrial.

Importance: Observational data have shown that postdiagnosis exercise is associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer death. The feasibility and tumor biological activity of exercise therapy is not known. Objective: To identify recommended phase 2 dose of exercise therapy for patients with prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center, phase 1a dose-finding trial was conducted at a tertiary cancer center using a patientcentric, decentralized platform and included 53 inactive men with treatment-naive localized prostate cancer scheduled to undergo surgical resection between June 2019 and January 2023. Data were analyzed in June 2024. Intervention: Six escalated exercise therapy dose levels ranging from 90 to 450 minutes per week of individualized, moderate-intensity treadmill walking, allocated using adaptive continual reassessment. All exercise therapy sessions were conducted remotely with real-time monitoring. Main Outcomes and Measures: Feasibility was evaluated by relative exercise dose intensity (REDI). A dose level was considered feasible if 70% or more of patients achieved an REDI of 75% or greater. Activity end points were changes in tumor cell proliferation (Ki67) and plasma prostate-specific antigen levels between pretreatment and postintervention. Safety and changes in patient physiology were also assessed. Results: A total of 53 men were enrolled (median [IQR] age, 61 [56-66] years). All dose levels were feasible (≥75% REDI). The mean (95% CI) changes in Ki67 were 5.0% (-4.3% to 14.0%) for 90 minutes per week, 2.4% (-1.3% to 6.2%) for 150 minutes per week, -1.3% (-5.8% to 3.3%) for 225 minutes per week, -0.2% (-4.0% to 3.7%) for 300 minutes per week, -2.6% (-9.2% to 4.1%) for 375 minutes per week, and 2.2% (-0.8% to 5.1%) for 450 minutes per week. Changes in prostate-specific antigen levels were 1.0 ng/mL (-1.8 to 3.8) for 90 minutes per week, 0.2 ng/mL (-1.1 to 1.5) for 150 minutes per week, -0.5 ng/mL (-1.2 to 0.3) for 225 minutes per week, -0.2 (-1.7 to 1.3) for 300 minutes per week, -0.7 ng/mL (-1.7 to 0.4) for 375 minutes per week, and -0.9 ng/mL (-2.4 to 0.7) for 450 minutes per week. No serious adverse events were observed. Overall, 225 minutes per week (approximately 5 minutes per treatment at 5 times weekly) was selected as the recommended phase 2 dose. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this nonrandomized clinical trial suggest that neoadjuvant exercise therapy is feasible and safe with promising activity in localized prostate cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03813615.

A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to pilot test an electronic health record-embedded decision support tool to facilitate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening discussions in the primary care setting. METHODS: We pilot-tested a novel decision support tool that was used by 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) for 6 months, followed by a survey. The tool comprised (1) a risk-stratified algorithm, (2) a tool for facilitating shared decision-making (Simple Schema), (3) three best practice advisories (BPAs: <45, 45-75, and >75 years), and (4) a health maintenance module for scheduling automated reminders about PSA rescreening. RESULTS: All PCPs found the tool feasible, acceptable, and clear to use. Eight out of ten PCPs reported that the tool made PSA screening conversations somewhat or much easier. Before using the tool, 70% of PCPs felt confident in their ability to discuss PSA screening with their patient, and this improved to 100% after the tool was used by PCPs for 6 months. PCPs found the BPAs for eligible (45-75 years) and older men (>75 years) more useful than the BPA for younger men (<45 years). Among the 10 PCPs, 60% found the Simple Schema to be very useful, and 50% found the health maintenance module to be extremely or very useful. Most PCPs reported the components of the tool to be at least somewhat useful, with 10% finding them to be very burdensome. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the tool, which is notable given the marked low acceptance of existing tools. All PCPs reported that they would consider continuing to use the tool in their clinic and were likely or very likely to recommend the tool to a colleague.

Provider Perceptions of an Electronic Health Record Prostate Cancer Screening Tool.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. RESULTS: The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion. CONCLUSION: There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.

Implementation and Validation of an Automated, Longitudinal Robotic Surgical Evaluation and Feedback Program at a High-volume Center and Impact on Training.

Background: Surgical education lacks a standardized, proficiency-based approach to evaluation and feedback. Objective: To assess the implementation and reception (ie, feasibility) of an automated, standardized, longitudinal surgical skill assessment and feedback system, and identify baseline trainee (resident and fellow) characteristics associated with achieving proficiency in robotic surgery while learning robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Design setting and participants: A quality improvement study assessing a pilot of a surgical experience tracking program was conducted over 1 yr. Participants were six fellows, eight residents, and nine attending surgeons at a tertiary cancer center. Intervention: Trainees underwent baseline self-assessment. After each surgery, an evaluation was completed independently by the trainee and attending surgeons. Performance was rated on a five-point anchored Likert scale (trainees were considered "proficient" when attending surgeons' rating was ≥4). Technical skills were assessed using the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) and Prostatectomy Assessment and Competency Evaluation (PACE). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Program success and utility were assessed by evaluating completion rates, evaluation completion times, and concordance rates between attending and trainee surgeons, and exit surveys. Baseline characteristics were assessed to determine associations with achieving proficiency. Results and limitations: Completion rates for trainees and attending surgeons were 72% and 77%, respectively. Fellows performed more steps/cases than residents (median [interquartile range]: 5 [3-7] and 3 [2-4], respectively; p < 0.01). Prior completion of robotics or laparoscopic skill courses and surgical experience measures were associated with achieving proficiency in multiple surgical steps and GEARS domains. Interclass correlation coefficients on individual components were 0.27-0.47 on GEARS domains. Conclusions: An automated surgical experience tracker with structured, longitudinal evaluation and feedback can be implemented with good participation and minimal participant time commitment, and can guide curricular development in a proficiency-based education program by identifying modifiable factors associated with proficiency, individualizing education, and identifying improvement areas within the education program. Patient summary: An automated, standardized, longitudinal surgical skill assessment and feedback system can be implemented successfully in surgical education settings and used to inform education plans and predict trainee proficiency.

The Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Focal Therapy (TARGET): A Systematic Review and International Consensus Recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect recurrences after focal therapy for prostate cancer but there is no robust guidance regarding its use. Our objective was to produce consensus recommendations on MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in July 2022 to develop consensus statements. A two-round consensus exercise was then performed, with a consensus meeting in January 2023, during which 329 statements were scored by 23 panellists from Europe and North America spanning urology, radiology, and pathology with experience across eight focal therapy modalities. Using RAND Corporation/University of California-Los Angeles methodology, the Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (TARGET) were based on consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 73 studies were included in the review. All 20 studies (100%) reporting suspicious imaging features cited focal contrast enhancement as suspicious for cancer recurrence. Of 31 studies reporting MRI assessment criteria, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was the scheme used most often (20 studies; 65%), followed by a 5-point Likert score (six studies; 19%). For the consensus exercise, consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement increased from 227 of 295 statements (76.9%) in round one to 270 of 329 statements (82.1%) in round two. Key recommendations include performing routine MRI at 12 mo using a multiparametric protocol compliant with PI-RADS version 2.1 standards. PI-RADS category scores for assessing recurrence within the ablation zone should be avoided. An alternative 5-point scoring system is presented that includes a major dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence and joint minor diffusion-weighted imaging and T2-weighted sequences. For the DCE sequence, focal nodular strong early enhancement was the most suspicious imaging finding. A structured minimum reporting data set and minimum reporting standards for studies detailing MRI data after focal therapy are presented. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The TARGET consensus recommendations may improve MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy for prostate cancer and provide minimum standards for study reporting. PATIENT SUMMARY: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can detect recurrent of prostate cancer after focal treatments, but there is a lack of guidance on MRI use for this purpose. We report new expert recommendations that may improve practice.

Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infectious Complications: The PREVENT Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The transrectal biopsy approach is traditionally used to detect prostate cancer. An alternative transperineal approach is historically performed under general anesthesia, but recent advances enable transperineal biopsy to be performed under local anesthesia. We sought to compare infectious complications of transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis versus transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis. METHODS: We assigned biopsy-naïve participants to undergo transperineal biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis versus transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis (rectal culture screening for fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria and antibiotic targeting to culture and sensitivity results) through a multicenter, randomized trial. The primary outcome was post-biopsy infection captured by a prospective medical review and patient report on a 7-d survey. The secondary outcomes included cancer detection, noninfectious complications, and a numerical rating scale (0-10) for biopsy-related pain and discomfort during and 7-d after biopsy. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 658 participants were randomized, with zero transperineal versus four (1.4%) transrectal biopsy infections (difference -1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.2%, 0.3%; p = 0.059). The rates of other complications were very low and similar. Importantly, detection of clinically significant cancer was similar (53% transperineal vs 50% transrectal, adjusted difference 2.0%; 95% CI -6.0, 10). Participants in the transperineal arm experienced worse periprocedural pain (0.6 adjusted difference [0-10 scale], 95% CI 0.2, 0.9), but the effect was small and resolved by 7-d. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Office-based transperineal biopsy is tolerable, does not compromise cancer detection, and did not result in infectious complications. Transrectal biopsy with targeted prophylaxis achieved similar infection rates, but requires rectal cultures and careful attention to antibiotic selection and administration. Consideration of these factors and antibiotic stewardship should guide clinical decision-making. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this multicenter randomized trial, we compare prostate biopsy infectious complications for the transperineal versus transrectal approach. The absence of infectious complications with transperineal biopsy without the use of preventative antibiotics is noteworthy, but not significantly different from transrectal biopsy with targeted antibiotic prophylaxis.