Limited prognostic role of routine serum markers (AP, CEA, LDH and NSE) in oligorecurrent prostate cancer patients undergoing PSMA-radioguided surgery.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the prognostic role of pre-salvage prostate-specific membrane antigen-radioguided surgery (PSMA-RGS) serum levels of alkaline phosphatase (AP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and neuron-specific enolase (NSE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who consecutively underwent PSMA-RGS for prostate cancer (PCa) oligorecurrence between January 2019 and January 2022 were selected. Biomarkers were assessed one day before surgery. Cox regression and logistic regression models tested the relationship between biochemical recurrence-free survival (BFS), 6- and 12-month biochemical recurrence (BCR), and several independent variables, including biomarkers. RESULTS: 153 consecutive patients were analyzed. In the univariable Cox regression analysis, none of the biomarkers achieved predictor status (AP: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.03, 95% CI 0.99, 1.01; p = 0.19; CEA: HR = 1.73, 95% CI 0.94, 1.21; p = 0.34; LDH: HR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00, 1.01; p = 0.05; NSE: HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.98, 1.06; p = 0.39). The only independent predictor of BFS was the number of positive lesions on PSMA PET (HR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.02, 1.30; p = 0.03). The number of positive lesions was confirmed as independent predictor for BCR within 6 and 12 months (BCR < 6 months: odds ratio [OR] = 1.1, 95% CI 1.0, 1.3; p = 0.04; BCR < 12 months: OR = 1.1, 95% CI 1.0, 1.3; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The assessment of AP, CEA, LDH, and NSE before salvage PSMA-RGS showed no prognostic impact. Further studies are needed to identify possible predictors that will optimize patient selection for salvage PSMA-RGS.

Histopathological results of radical prostatectomy specimen of men younger than 50 years of age at the time of surgery: possible implications for prostate cancer screening programs?

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PCa) detection is usually achieved by PSA measurement and, if indicated, further diagnostics. The recent EAU guidelines recommend a first PSA test at the age of 50 years, if no family history of PCa or BRCA2 mutation exists. However, some men might harbor significant PCa at younger age; thus we evaluated the histopathological results of men treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) in their 40 s at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We relied on the data of all patients who underwent RP in our institution between 1992 and 2020 and were younger than 50 years at the time of surgery. The histopathological results are descriptively presented. Moreover, we tested the effect of a positive family history on the descriptive results. RESULTS: Overall, 1225 patients younger than 50 years underwent RP at our institution. Median age was 47 years. Most patients showed favorable histopathological characteristics. However, 20% of patients had extraprostatic disease (≥ pT3a), 15% had ISUP Gleason grade group ≥ 3, and 7% had positive lymph nodes (pN1). Patients with a known positive family history did not have a higher rate of adverse disease as their counterparts with a negative family history. DISCUSSION: Our data show that the majority of patients who were diagnosed with PCa at a very young age had favorable histopathological RP characteristics. However, a non-negligible proportion of patients already showed locally advanced disease and would have probably benefited from earlier PCa detection. This should be kept in mind when PCa screening recommendations are proposed.

True targeting-derived prostate biopsy: HistoScanning™ remained inadequate despite advanced technical efforts.

PURPOSE: To verify the reliability of HistoScanning™-based, true targeting (TT)-derived prostate biopsy. METHODS: We relied on 40 patients suspicious for prostate cancer who underwent standard and TT-derived prostate biopsy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and the area under the curve (AUC) were assessed for the prediction of biopsy results per octant by HistoScanning™, using different HistoScanning™ signal volume cutoffs (>0, >0.2 and >0.5 ml). RESULTS: Overall, 319 octants were analyzed. Of those, 64 (20.1 %) harbored prostate cancer. According to different HistoScanning™ signal volume cutoffs (>0, >0.2 and >0.5 ml), the AUCs for predicting biopsy results were: 0.51, 0.51 and 0.53, respectively. Similarly, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values were: 20.7, 78.2, 17.4 and 81.6 %; 20.7, 82.0, 20.3 and 82.3 %; and 12.1, 94.6, 33.3 and 82.9 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of biopsy results based on HistoScanning™ signals and TT-derived biopsies was unreliable. Moreover, the AUC of TT-derived biopsies was low and did not improve when additional signal volume cutoffs were applied (>0.2 and >0.5 ml). We cannot recommend a variation of well-established biopsy standards or reduction in biopsy cores based on HistoScanning™ signals.

Oncological outcome after radical prostatectomy: Marital status does not make a difference.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of marital status on prostate cancer characteristics at radical prostatectomy and oncological outcome after surgery at a high-volume center. METHODS: We relied on the Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer database and investigated 8088 prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy between January 2000 and March 2011. We analyzed differences in clinical and pathological characteristics according to marital status (married and partnership vs single). Additionally, we relied on multivariable Cox regression analyses to predict biochemical recurrence, metastases and death after radical prostatectomy. Finally, Kaplan-Meier analyses were used in a propensity score-matched cohort, adjusted for clinical and pathological characteristics, to examine differences in biochemical recurrence-free, metastases-free and overall survival according to marital status. RESULTS: According to marital status, no significant differences were recorded within clinical and pathological characteristics (all P > 0.05). The impact of marital status on biochemical recurrence (hazard ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9-1.3, P = 0.7), metastases (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.8-2.1, P = 0.3) and death (hazard ratio 0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.4-1.6, P = 0.6) after radical prostatectomy was not significant (median follow up 48 months). Kaplan-Meier analyses recorded no significant differences for biochemical recurrence-free, metastases-free and overall survival (all log-rank P > 0.05) according to marital status. CONCLUSIONS: Marital status does not affect the clinical and pathological characteristics of radical prostatectomy patients treated at a high-volume center. Furthermore, marital status does not affect biochemical recurrence-free and metastases-free survival after radical prostatectomy.