Reliable Prostate Cancer Risk Mapping From MRI Using Targeted and Systematic Core Needle Biopsy Histopathology.

OBJECTIVE: To compute a dense prostate cancer risk map for the individual patient post-biopsy from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to provide a more reliable evaluation of its fitness in prostate regions that were not identified as suspicious for cancer by a human-reader in pre- and intra-biopsy imaging analysis. METHODS: Low-level pre-biopsy MRI biomarkers from targeted and non-targeted biopsy locations were extracted and statistically tested for representativeness against biomarkers from non-biopsied prostate regions. A probabilistic machine learning classifier was optimized to map biomarkers to their core-level pathology, followed by extrapolation of pathology scores to non-biopsied prostate regions. Goodness-of-fit was assessed at targeted and non-targeted biopsy locations for the post-biopsy individual patient. RESULTS: Our experiments showed high predictability of imaging biomarkers in differentiating histopathology scores in thousands of non-targeted core-biopsy locations (ROC-AUCs: 0.85-0.88), but also high variability between patients (Median ROC-AUC [IQR]: 0.81-0.89 [0.29-0.40]). CONCLUSION: The sparseness of prostate biopsy data makes the validation of a whole gland risk mapping a non-trivial task. Previous studies i) focused on targeted-biopsy locations although biopsy-specimens drawn from systematically scattered locations across the prostate constitute a more representative sample to non-biopsied regions, and ii) estimated prediction-power across predicted instances (e.g., biopsy specimens) with no patient distinction, which may lead to unreliable estimation of model fitness to the individual patient due to variation between patients in instance count, imaging characteristics, and pathologies. SIGNIFICANCE: This study proposes a personalized whole-gland prostate cancer risk mapping post-biopsy to allow clinicians to better stage and personalize focal therapy treatment plans.

Cytologic evaluation of upper urinary tract specimens: An institutional retrospective study using The Paris System for Reporting Urine Cytology second edition with histopathologic follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Cytologic evaluation of the upper urinary tract (UUT) can be challenging due to instrumentation artefacts. This study retrospectively reviewed UUT specimens using The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytopathology, second edition (TPS 2.0), compared it with the original reporting system (ORS) and correlated it with histopathologic follow-up. METHODS: An institutional database was reviewed for the UUT biopsy/resection histopathologic specimens, and we included 52 UUT cytology specimens pertinent to these cases in the study. These specimens were blindly reviewed and reclassified using TPS 2.0. The correlation between TPS 2.0, ORS and histopathologic follow-up was assessed. RESULTS: The UUT cytology specimens corresponded to 21 (40.4%) high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC), 27 (51.9%) low-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC) and 4 (7.7%) benign cases on follow-up. For HGGC cases, the associated TPS categories included unsatisfactory (n = 1, 4.8%), negative for HGUC (NHGUC; n = 3, 14.3%), atypical urothelial cells (AUC; n = 6, 28.6%), suspicious for HGUC (SHGUC; n = 3, 14.3%) and HGUC (n = 8, 38.1%), while ORS categorised the specimens as unsatisfactory (n = 1, 4.8%), negative for malignant cells (NFMC; n = 3, 14.3%), AUC (n = 5, 23.8%), low-grade urothelial carcinoma (LGUC; n = 0, 0%), SHGUC (n = 5, 23.8%) and HGUC (n = 7, 33.3%). The risks of high-grade malignancy among cytologic categories were similar between ORS and TPS (p > 0.05). The majority of LGUC were classified as AUC similarly by ORS and TPS (55.6% vs. 59.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated comparable performance between TPS 2.0 and ORS for UUT cytology specimens. Cytological diagnosis of UUT specimens remains challenging, especially for LGUC.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for individuals with a prostate who opt to participate in an early detection program after receiving the appropriate counseling on the pros and cons. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines with regard to the testing protocol, use of multiparametric MRI, and management of negative biopsy results to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and minimize the detection of indolent disease.

Prediction of Adverse Pathology at Radical Prostatectomy in Grade Group 2 and 3 Prostate Biopsies Using Machine Learning.

PURPOSE: There is ongoing clinical need to improve estimates of disease outcome in prostate cancer. Machine learning (ML) approaches to pathologic diagnosis and prognosis are a promising and increasingly used strategy. In this study, we use an ML algorithm for prediction of adverse outcomes at radical prostatectomy (RP) using whole-slide images (WSIs) of prostate biopsies with Grade Group (GG) 2 or 3 disease. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of prostate biopsies collected at our institution which had corresponding RP, GG 2 or 3 disease one or more cores, and no biopsies with higher than GG 3 disease. A hematoxylin and eosin-stained core needle biopsy from each site with GG 2 or 3 disease was scanned and used as the sole input for the algorithm. The ML pipeline had three phases: image preprocessing, feature extraction, and adverse outcome prediction. First, patches were extracted from each biopsy scan. Subsequently, the pre-trained Visual Geometry Group-16 convolutional neural network was used for feature extraction. A representative feature vector was then used as input to an Extreme Gradient Boosting classifier for predicting the binary adverse outcome. We subsequently assessed patient clinical risk using CAPRA score for comparison with the ML pipeline results. RESULTS: The data set included 361 WSIs from 107 patients (56 with adverse pathology at RP). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the ML classification were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.81), 0.65 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.00) for the entire cohort, and GG 2 and GG 3 patients, respectively, similar to the performance of the CAPRA clinical risk assessment. CONCLUSION: We provide evidence for the potential of ML algorithms to use WSIs of needle core prostate biopsies to estimate clinically relevant prostate cancer outcomes.

Clinical utility of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy in patients with lower suspicion lesions on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The utility of Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) guided prostate biopsy among patients with prostate cancer (CaP) managed with active surveillance (AS) with low-suspicion lesions remains unsettled. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 415 men with low-risk CaP managed with active surveillance. We selected men with mpMRI visible index lesions scored as 2 or 3 according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2. The primary outcome was detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP) was defined as Gleason grade group ≥ 2. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of biopsy approaches using area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve and evaluated factors associated with csCaP in these patients using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: CsCaP was identified in 22 of 125 patients (17.6%) with PI-RADS 2 or 3 index lesions during surveillance prostate biopsies. These included 10 (45.5%) diagnosed by systematic biopsy alone, 9 (40.9%) by targeted alone, and 3 (13.6%) by both approaches. On multivariable analysis, the only significant variable predicting the detection of csCaP in men with low-risk imaging mpMRI characteristics was higher PSAD (OR per 0.1 unit=2.26, 95% CI 1.25-4.06, P = 0.007. A PSAD cutoff of 0.1, 0.12 and 0.15 resulted in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 90.9%, 87.1% and 86.2%, respectively. When stratified by PI-RADS score, a PSAD cutoff of 0.1, 0.12 and 0.15 resulted in NPV of 96.2%, 90.6% and 89.7% and 86.2%, 84.2% and 83.3% for detection of csCaP in PI-RADS 2 and 3 lesions, respectively. In patients with PIRDAS 2 lesions, using a PSAD of 0.1 would potentially allow 51% of patients to avoid biopsy with only a 3.8% chance of missing csCaP. CONCLUSION: In men with clinical low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance with PI-RADS 2 and 3 lesions, there is an almost 18% risk of upgrade to csCaP. Integration of PSAD may be a useful adjunctive tool in identifying patients at highest risk for upgrade despite favorable imaging findings. In men with PIRADS 2 lesions with PSAD ≤0.12 biopsy can be avoided. For men with PIRADS 2 lesions with PSAD ≤0.15 informed decision making regarding the AS intensity should include that these patients have a low risk (>10%) of developing csCaP. In men with PIRADS 3 lesions with PSAD >0.1, shared decision making should include discussion of a >10% miss rate of csCaP.

Multi-institutional analysis of clinical and imaging risk factors for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions.

BACKGROUND: Most Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 lesions do not contain clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; grade group ≥2). This study was aimed at identifying clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived risk fac- tors that predict CSPCa in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions. METHODS: This study analyzed the detection of CSPCa in men who underwent MRI-targeted biopsy for PI-RADS 3 lesions. Multivariable logistic regression models with goodness-of-fit testing were used to identify variables associated with CSPCa. Receiver operating curves and decision curve analyses were used to estimate the clinical utility of a predictive model. RESULTS: Of the 1784 men reviewed, 1537 were included in the training cohort, and 247 were included in the validation cohort. The 309 men with CSPCa (17.3%) were older, had a higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, and had a greater likelihood of an anteriorly located lesion than men without CSPCa (p < .01). Multivariable analysis revealed that PSA density (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.85; p < .01), age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07; p < .01), and a biopsy-naive status (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.38-2.44) were independently associated with CSPCa. A prior negative biopsy was negatively associated (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.50; p < .01). The application of the model to the validation cohort resulted in an area under the curve of 0.78. A predicted risk threshold of 12% could have prevented 25% of biopsies while detecting almost 95% of CSPCas with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 34%. CONCLUSIONS: For PI-RADS 3 lesions, an elevated PSA density, older age, and a biopsy-naive status were associated with CSPCa, whereas a prior negative biopsy was negatively associated. A predictive model could prevent PI-RADS 3 biopsies while missing few CSPCas. LAY SUMMARY: Among men with an equivocal lesion (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), those who are older, those who have a higher prostate-specific antigen density, and those who have never had a biopsy before are at higher risk for having clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) on subsequent biopsy. However, men with at least one negative biopsy have a lower risk of CSPCa. A new predictive model can greatly reduce the need to biopsy equivocal lesions noted on mpMRI while missing only a few cases of CSPCa.

Association Between a 22-feature Genomic Classifier and Biopsy Gleason Upgrade During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although the Decipher genomic classifier has been validated as a prognostic tool for several prostate cancer endpoints, little is known about its role in assessing the risk of biopsy reclassification for patients on active surveillance, a key event that often triggers treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between Decipher genomic classifier scores and biopsy Gleason upgrading among patients on active surveillance. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective cohort study among patients with low- and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent biopsy-based Decipher testing as part of their clinical care. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We evaluated the association between the Decipher score and any increase in biopsy Gleason grade group (GG) using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for models comprising baseline clinical variables with or without the Decipher score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified 133 patients for inclusion with a median age of 67.7 yr and median prostate-specific of 5.6 ng/ml. At enrollment, 75.9% had GG1 and 24.1% had GG2 disease. Forty-three patients experienced biopsy upgrading. On multivariable logistic regression, the Decipher score was significantly associated with biopsy upgrading (odds ratio 1.37 per 0.10 unit increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.79; p = 0.02). The Decipher score was associated with upgrading among patients with biopsy GG 1 disease, but not GG2 disease. The discriminative ability of a clinical model (AUC 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.74) was improved by integration of the Decipher score (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The Decipher genomic classifier score was associated with short-term biopsy Gleason upgrading among patients on active surveillance. PATIENT SUMMARY: The results from this study indicate that among patients with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance, those with higher Decipher scores were more likely to have higher-grade disease found over time. These findings indicate that the Decipher test might be useful for guiding the intensity of monitoring during active surveillance, such as more frequent biopsy for patients with higher scores.

Optimal Use of Tumor-Based Molecular Assays for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSEOF REVIEW: The use of genomic testing for prostate cancer continues to grow; however, utilization remains institutionally dependent. Herein, we review current tissue-based markers and comment on current use with active surveillance and prostate MRI. RECENT FINDINGS: While data continues to emerge, several studies have shown a role for genomic testing for treatment selection. Novel testing options include ConfirmMDx, ProMark, Prolaris, and Decipher, which have shown utility in select patients. The current body of literature on this specific topic remains very limited; prospective trials with long-term follow-up are needed to improve our understanding on how these genomic tests fit when combined with our current clinical tools. As the literature matures, it is likely that newer risk calculators that combine our classic clinical variables with genomic and imaging data will be developed to bring about standard protocols for prostate cancer decision-making.

Targeting prostate cancer with Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin functionalized nanoparticles co-encapsulating imaging cargo enhances magnetic resonance imaging specificity.

Magnetic resonance is a key imaging tool for the detection of prostate cancer; however, better tools focusing on cancer specificity are required to distinguish benign from cancerous regions. We found higher expression of claudin-3 (CLDN-3) and -4 (CLDN-4) in higher grade than lower-grade human prostate cancer biopsies (n = 174), leading to the design of functionalized nanoparticles (NPs) with a non-toxic truncated version of the natural ligand Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin (C-CPE) that has a strong binding affinity to Cldn-3 and Cldn-4 receptors. We developed a first-of-its-type, C-CPE-NP-based MRI detection tool in a prostate tumor-bearing mouse model. NPs with an average diameter of 152.9 ±â€¯15.7 nm (RS1) had a 2-fold enhancement of tumor specificity compared to larger (421.2 ±â€¯33.8 nm) NPs (RS4). There was a 1.8-fold (P < 0.01) and 1.6-fold (P < 0.01) upregulation of the tumor-to-liver signal intensities of C-RS1 and C-RS4 (functionalized NPs) compared to controls, respectively. Also, tumor specificity was 3.1-fold higher (P < 0.001) when comparing C-RS1 to C-RS4. This detection tool improved tumor localization of contrast-enhanced MRI, supporting potential clinical applicability.

Extent of High-Grade Prostatic Adenocarcinoma in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Enhances Prediction of Pathologic Stage.

CONTEXT.­: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of prostate with targeted biopsy has enhanced detection of high-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma (HG PCa). However, utility of amount of HG PCa (Gleason pattern 4/5) in mpMRI-targeted biopsies versus standard 12-core biopsies in predicting adverse outcomes on radical prostatectomy (RP) is unknown. OBJECTIVE.­: To examine the utility of amount of HG PCa in mpMRI-targeted biopsies versus standard 12-core biopsies in predicting adverse RP outcomes. DESIGN.­: We performed a retrospective review of prostate biopsies that had corresponding RP, 1 or more mpMRI-targeted biopsy, and Grade Group 2 disease or higher. For the 169 cases identified, total millimeters of carcinoma and HG PCa and longest length HG PCa in a single core were recorded for 12-core biopsies and each set of mpMRI-targeted biopsies. For RP specimens, Gleason grade, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle involvement, and lymph node metastasis were recorded. The main outcome studied was prostate-confined disease at RP. A logistic regression model was used to test which pre-RP variables related to this outcome. RESULTS.­: Univariate analysis showed significant associations with adverse RP outcomes in 5 of 8 quantifiable variables; longest millimeter HG PCa in a single 12-core biopsy, highest Grade Group in any core, and total millimeter HG in mpMRI-targeted biopsies showed no statistical association (P = .54, P = .13, and P = .55, respectively). In multivariate analysis, total millimeter carcinoma in all cores, highest Grade Group in any core, and longest millimeter HG PCa in a single mpMRI-targeted core provided additional predictive value (P < .001, P = .004, and P = .03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS.­: Quantitation of HG PCa in mpMRI-targeted biopsies provides additional value over 12-core biopsies alone in predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer at RP. Linear millimeters of HG PCa in mpMRI-targeted biopsies is a significant parameter associated with higher pathologic stage and could be of value in risk models.

Changes in Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing Relative to the Revised US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation on Prostate Cancer Screening.

IMPORTANCE: In April 2017, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) published a draft guideline that reversed its 2012 guidance advising against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer in all men (grade D), instead endorsing individual decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years (grade C). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in rates of PSA testing after revisions in the USPSTF guideline on prostate cancer screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study used deidentified claims data from Blue Cross Blue Shield beneficiaries aged 40 to 89 years from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2019. EXPOSURES: Publication of the USPSTF's draft (April 2017) and final (May 2018) recommendation on prostate cancer screening. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Age-adjusted rates of PSA testing in bimonthly periods were calculated, and PSA testing rates from calendar years before (January 1 to December 31, 2016) and after (January 1 to December 31, 2019) the guideline change were compared. Interrupted time series analyses were used to evaluate the association of the draft (April 2017) and published (May 2018) USPSTF guideline with rates of PSA testing. Changes in rates of PSA testing were further evaluated among beneficiaries within the age categories reflected in the guideline: 40 to 54 years, 55 to 69 years, and 70 to 89 years. RESULTS: The median number of eligible beneficiaries for each bimonthly period was 8 087 565 (range, 6 407 602-8 747 308), and the median age of all included eligible beneficiaries was 53 years (IQR, 47-59 years). Between 2016 and 2019, the mean (SD) rate of PSA testing increased from 32.5 (1.1) to 36.5 (1.1) tests per 100 person-years, a relative increase of 12.5% (95% CI, 1.1%-24.4%). During the same period, mean (SD) rates of PSA testing increased from 20.6 (0.8) to 22.7 (0.9) tests per 100 person-years among men aged 40 to 54 years (relative increase, 10.1%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 23.7%), from 49.8 (1.9) to 55.8 (1.8) tests per 100 person-years among men aged 55 to 69 years (relative increase, 12.1%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 25.2%), and from 38.0 (1.4) to 44.2 (1.4) tests per 100 person-years among men aged 70 to 89 years (relative increase, 16.2%; 95% CI, 4.2%-29.0%). Interrupted time series analysis revealed a significantly increasing trend of PSA testing after April 2017 among all beneficiaries (0.30 tests per 100 person-years for each bimonthly period; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This large national cohort study found that rates of PSA testing increased after the USPSTF's draft statement in 2017, reversing trends seen after earlier guidance against PSA testing for all patients. Increased testing was also observed among older men, who may be less likely to benefit from prostate cancer screening.

Facility-Level Variation in Use of Locoregional Therapy for Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to understand patient- and institution-level factors associated with use of locoregional therapy for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer in the era before the availability of evidence supporting its efficacy. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma (stage M1) between 2004 and 2017. We assessed patient factors associated with definitive local therapy with radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy using multilevel logistic regression accounting for clustering within institutions. We further characterized trends in facility-level use and examined institutional factors associated with utilization. RESULTS: We identified 35,933 patients with M1 prostate cancer at 1,188 facilities. A total of 4,146 patients (11.5%) received local therapy for M1 disease (radiation therapy in 3,378 and radical prostatectomy in 768). Use of local treatment was concentrated among a smaller number of facilities: 50% of all local therapy was delivered at 161 facilities (14% of total). At the patient level, uninsured status (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.79, p <0.01) and high comorbidity (Charlson-Deyo score, OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26-0.6, p <0.01) were associated with lower odds of local therapy. High-utilizing facilities (top quartile) were more commonly community centers (OR 1.76, 95% CI 10.7-2.95, p <0.01) and differed by geographic region (South Atlantic vs West South Central region: OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.88, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In the period before locoregional therapy was supported by clinical practice guidelines, locoregional therapy use varied significantly at the facility level and was driven by a smaller number of high-utilizing facilities. These findings can contextualize expected increase in the use of local therapy for metastatic prostate cancer.

Adoption of New Risk Stratification Technologies Within US Hospital Referral Regions and Association With Prostate Cancer Management.

Importance: The clinical decisions that arise from prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genomic testing in patients with prostate cancer are not well understood. Objective: To evaluate the association between regional uptake of prostate MRI and genomic testing and observation vs treatment for prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of commercial insurance claims for prostate MRI and genomic testing included 65 530 patients 40 to 89 years of age newly diagnosed with prostate cancer from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2019. Exposures: Patient- and regional-level use of prostate MRI and genomic testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Observation vs definitive treatment for prostate cancer. Patient-level analyses examined the association between receipt of testing or residing in a hospital referral region (HRR) that adopted testing and observation. In regional-level analyses, the dependent variable was the change in the proportion of patients observed for prostate cancer at the HRR level between 2 periods: July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2014, and July 1, 2017, to June 20, 2019. The independent study variables included HRR-level changes in the proportion of men undergoing prostate MRI and genomic testing between these periods, and the models were adjusted for contextual factors associated with prostate cancer care and socioeconomic status. Results: This study identified 65 530 patients, including 27 679 in the early period (mean [SD] age, 58.0 [5.9] years) and 37 851 in the late period (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.7] years). Use of prostate MRI increased significantly from 7.2% (95% CI, 6.9%-7.5%) to 16.7% (95% CI, 16.3%-17.1%) from the early to late period. Use of genomic testing increased significantly from 1.3% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%) to 12.7% (95% CI, 12.3%-13.0%) from the early to late period. Compared with the lowest, the highest HRR quartiles of prostate MRI and genomic testing uptake were associated with an adjusted 4.1% (SE, 1.1%; P < .001) and 2.5% (SE, 1.1%; P = .03) absolute increase in the proportion of patients receiving observation, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, uptake of prostate MRI and genomic testing was associated with increased use of initial observation vs treatment for prostate cancer. Marked geographic variation supports the need for further patient-level research to optimize the dissemination and outcome of testing.

International Multi-Site Initiative to Develop an MRI-Inclusive Nomogram for Side-Specific Prediction of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: To develop an international, multi-site nomogram for side-specific prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer based on clinical, biopsy, and magnetic resonance imaging- (MRI) derived data. METHODS: Ten institutions from the USA and Europe contributed clinical and side-specific biopsy and MRI variables of consecutive patients who underwent prostatectomy. A logistic regression model was used to develop a nomogram for predicting side-specific EPE on prostatectomy specimens. The performance of the statistical model was evaluated by bootstrap resampling and cross validation and compared with the performance of benchmark models that do not incorporate MRI findings. RESULTS: Data from 840 patients were analyzed; pathologic EPE was found in 320/840 (31.8%). The nomogram model included patient age, prostate-specific antigen density, side-specific biopsy data (i.e., Gleason grade group, percent positive cores, tumor extent), and side-specific MRI features (i.e., presence of a PI-RADSv2 4 or 5 lesion, level of suspicion for EPE, length of capsular contact). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the new, MRI-inclusive model (0.828, 95% confidence limits: 0.805, 0.852) was significantly higher than that of any of the benchmark models (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In an international, multi-site study, we developed an MRI-inclusive nomogram for the side-specific prediction of EPE of prostate cancer that demonstrated significantly greater accuracy than clinical benchmark models.

Utility of PSA Density in Predicting Upgraded Gleason Score in Men on Active Surveillance With Negative MRI.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether PSA density (PSAD), can sub-stratify risk of biopsy upgrade among men on active surveillance (AS) with normal baseline MRI. METHODS: We identified a cohort of patients with low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer on AS at two large academic centers from February 2013 - December 2017. Analysis was restricted to patients with GG1 cancer on initial biopsy and a negative baseline or surveillance mpMRI, defined by the absence of PI-RADS 2 or greater lesions. We assessed ability of PSA, prostate volume and PSAD to predict upgrading on confirmatory biopsy. RESULTS: We identified 98 patients on AS with negative baseline or surveillance mpMRI. Median PSA at diagnosis was 5.8 ng/mL and median PSAD was 0.08 ng/mL/mL. Fourteen men (14.3%) experienced Gleason upgrade at confirmatory biopsy. Patients who were upgraded had higher PSA (7.9 vs 5.4 ng/mL, P = .04), PSAD (0.20 vs 0.07 ng/mL/mL, P < .001), and lower prostate volumes (42.5 vs 65.8 mL, P = .01). On multivariate analysis, PSAD was associated with pathologic upgrade (OR 2.23 per 0.1-increase, P = .007). A PSAD cutoff at 0.08 generated a NPV of 98% for detection of pathologic upgrade. CONCLUSION: PSAD reliably discriminated the risk of Gleason upgrade at confirmatory biopsy among men with low-grade prostate cancer with negative MRI. PSAD could be clinically implemented to reduce the intensity of surveillance for a subset of patients.

Doubling of Decipher Biopsy Genomic Score Is Related to Disease Reclassification on Subsequent Surveillance Biopsy but Not Adverse Features on Radical Prostatectomy.

The utility of serial Decipher biopsy scores in a true active surveillance population is still unknown. In a man on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer, a doubling of the Decipher biopsy score within genomic low-risk category from first to the second biopsy related to biopsy reclassification to Gleason grade group 4 on the third biopsy. However, the final pathology at radical prostatectomy showed Gleason grade group 2 with an organ-confined disease. This case suggests that the genomic risk category of Decipher biopsy scores during active surveillance may be more informative than either the interval genomic score change or the biopsy Gleason grade group.

The Prognostic Association of Prostate MRI PI-RADS™ v2 Assessment Category and Risk of Biochemical Recurrence after Definitive Local Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Although the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System™ version 2 (PI-RADS™ v2) is a reliable diagnostic tool for significant prostate cancer, less is known about the prognostic significance of the structured reporting scheme for estimating oncologic outcomes after treatment. We aimed to synthesize the available evidence regarding the association of PI-RADS v2 score and risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) among patients undergoing primary definitive treatment for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically queried the PubMed® and Web of Science™ databases to identify studies addressing the association between the PI-RADS v2 and treatment outcomes. We included studies through November 2020 that assessed the independent prognostic significance of PI-RADS v2. After assessing risk of bias and quality, we conducted a formal meta-analysis to estimate the pooled effects of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) classification on the risk of BCR. RESULTS: We identified 9 and 7 eligible studies including 2,274 and 1,215 patients for the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Eight were conducted in the context of radical prostatectomy and 1 post-radiation. Among patients treated with radical prostatectomy, higher PI-RADS v2 scores were significantly associated with risk of BCR (pooled HR 3.06, 95% CI 2.16-4.33; p <0.01). There was no significant heterogeneity among studies. For all studies, PI-RADS v2 score remained significantly associated with BCR (pooled HR 3.19, 95% CI 2.28-4.45; p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Prostate MRI findings assessed with the PI-RADS v2 classification were independently associated with risk of BCR after definitive local therapy, primarily based on data from radical prostatectomy. These findings support the prognostic significance of MRI, in addition to its role in prostate cancer diagnosis.

Outcomes of Serial Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Subsequent Biopsy in Men with Low-risk Prostate Cancer Managed with Active Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and subsequent biopsy in monitoring prostate cancer (PCa) in men on active surveillance (AS) have not been defined clearly. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether changes in serial mpMRI can predict pathological upgrade among men with grade group (GG) 1 PCa managed with AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of men with GG1 on AS with at least two consecutive mpMRI examinations during 2012-2018 who underwent mpMRI/ultrasound fusion or systematic biopsies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Progression on serial mpMRI was evaluated as a predictor of pathological upgrading to GG≥2 on a follow-up biopsy using clinical, pathological, and imaging factors in binary logistic regression. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were determined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 122 patients, 29 men (23.8%) experienced pathological upgrade on the follow-up biopsy. Progression on mpMRI was not associated with pathological upgrade. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mpMRI progression for predicting pathological upgrade were 41.3%, 54.8%, 22.2%, and 75%, respectively. Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, p=0.006), Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score on initial mpMRI (4-5 vs ≤3, OR 7.48, p=0.01), number of positive systematic cores (OR 1.84, p=0.03), number of positive targeted cores (OR 0.44, p=0.04), and maximum percent of targeted core tumor involvement (OR 1.04, p=0.01) were significantly associated with pathological upgrade. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe an association between mpMRI progression and pathological upgrade; however, a PI-RADS score of 4-5 on initial mpMRI was predictive of subsequent pathological progression. The continued use of systematic and fusion biopsies appears necessary due to risks of reclassification over time. PATIENT SUMMARY: Progression on serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging during active surveillance (AS) is not associated with progression on the follow-up biopsy. Both systematic and fusion biopsies are necessary to sufficiently capture progression during AS.

When and How Should Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer be De-Escalated?

Despite widespread adoption of active surveillance (AS) for low-risk prostate cancer, less is known about how or when monitoring should be deintensified. We performed a narrative review of the available evidence and guidelines addressing transitions from active to passive monitoring, including watchful waiting. Increasing age and comorbidity limit quality-adjusted life years gained from curative intervention, although no universal thresholds exist to denote a transition from active monitoring. Despite observational studies indicating that AS intensity decreases over time, the risk of distant progression also increases with age, suggesting an opportunity to improve decision support that incorporates multiple factors when navigating these decisions. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the available evidence surrounding transitioning from active monitoring to observation. Clinical practice guidelines and research studies support decreasing intensity based on an appreciation of age, other medical problems, and patient preferences.

National trends in the management of patients with positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate practice patterns of planned post-operative radiation therapy (RT) among men with positive surgical margins (PSM) at radical prostatectomy. METHODS: We identified 43,806 men within the National Cancer Database with pathologic node-negative prostate cancer diagnosed in 2010 through 2014 with PSM. The primary endpoint was receipt of planned (RT) within a patient's initial course of treatment. We examined post-RP androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with RT as a secondary endpoint. We evaluated patterns of post-operative management and characteristics associated with planned post-prostatectomy RT. RESULTS: Within 12 months of RP, 87.0% received no planned RT, 8.5% RT alone, 1.3% ADT alone, and 3.1% RT with ADT. In a multivariable logistic regression model, planned RT use was associated with clinical and pathologic characteristics as estimated by surgical Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA-S) category (intermediate versus low, OR = 2.87, 95% CI 2.19-3.75, P < 0.001; high versus low, OR = 10.23, 95% CI 7.79-13.43, P < 0.001), treatment at community versus academic centers (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.15-1.34, P < 0.001), shorter distance to a treatment facility (OR = 0.97 for each 10-mile, 95% CI 0.96-0.98, P < 0.001), and uninsured status (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.10-1.77, P = 0.005). The odds of receiving planned RT were lower in 2014 versus 2010 (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85, P < 0.001). There was no significant change in the use of ADT with RT. High versus low CAPRA-S category was associated with the use of ADT in addition to RT (OR = 5.13, 95% CI 1.57-16.80, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The use of planned post-prostatectomy RT remained stable among patients with PSM and appears driven primarily by the presence of other adverse pathologic features.