A Prospective Study Comparing Cancer Detection Rates of Transperineal Prostate Biopsies Performed by Junior Urologists versus a Senior Consultant in a Real-World Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate biopsy (PB) is a typical daily practice method for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). This study aimed to compare the PCa detection rates and peri- and postoperative complications of PB among 3 residents and a consultant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 343 patients who underwent PB between August 2018 and July 2019 were involved in this study. Residents were systematically trained for 2 weeks by a consultant for performing systematic biopsy (SB) and targeted biopsy (TB). And then, 3 residents and the consultant performed PB independently every quarter due to routine rotation in daily practice. The peri- and postoperative data were collected from a prospectively maintained database (www.pc-follow.cn). The primary outcome and secondary outcome were to compare the PCa detection rates and complications between the residents and consultant, respectively. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the residents and consultant in terms of overall PCa detection rates of SB and TB or further stratified by prostate-specific antigen value and prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scores. We found the consultant had more TB cores (175 cores vs. 86-114 cores, p = 0.043) and shorter procedural time (mean 16 min vs. 19.7-20.1 min, p < 0.001) versus the residents. The complication rate for the consultant was 6.7% and 5%-8.2% for the residents, respectively (p = 0.875). CONCLUSIONS: The residents could get similar PCa detection and complication rates compared with that of the consultant after a 2-week training. However, the residents still need more cases to shorten the time of the biopsy procedure.

A Novel Prediction Tool Based on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Determine the Biopsy Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PSA Levels Less than 50 ng/ml.

PURPOSE: To develop and internally validate nomograms to help choose the optimal biopsy strategy among no biopsy, targeted biopsy (TB) only, or TB plus systematic biopsy (SB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 385 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided TB and/or SB at our institute after undergoing multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) between 2015 and 2018. We developed models to predict clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) based on suspicious lesions from a TB result and based on the whole prostate gland from the results of TB plus SB or SB only. Nomograms were generated using logistic regression and evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, calibration curves and decision analysis. The results were validated using ROC curve and calibration on 177 patients from 2018 to 2019 at the same institute. RESULTS: In the multivariate analyses, prostate-specific antigen level, prostate volume, and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score were predictors of csPCa in both nomograms. Age was also included in the model for suspicious lesions, while obesity was included in the model for the whole gland. The area under the curve (AUC) in the ROC analyses of the prediction models was 0.755 for suspicious lesions and 0.887 for the whole gland. Both models performed well in the calibration and decision analyses. In the validation cohort, the ROC curve described the AUCs of 0.723 and 0.917 for the nomogram of suspicious lesions and nomogram of the whole gland, respectively. Also, the calibration curve detected low error rates for both models. CONCLUSION: Nomograms with excellent discriminative ability were developed and validated. These nomograms can be used to select the optimal biopsy strategy for individual patients in the future.

Association of biopsy core number and location with pain in patients undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia: a secondary analysis of the APROPOS trial.

BACKGROUND: APROPOS was a multicentre, randomized, blinded trial focus on investigating the perineal nerve block versus the periprostatic block in pain control for men undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy. In the analysis reported here, the authors aimed to evaluate the association of biopsy core count and location with pain outcomes in patients undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia. METHODS: APROPOS was performed at six medical centers in China. Patients with suspected prostate cancer were randomized to receive either a perineal nerve block or a periprostatic block (1:1), followed by a transperineal prostate biopsy. The secondary analysis outcomes were the worst pain experienced during the prostate biopsy and postbiopsy pain at 1,6, and 24 h. RESULTS: Between 12 August 2020 and 20 July 2022, a total of 192 patients were randomized in the original trial, and 188 were involved in this analysis, with 94 patients per group. Participants had a median (IQR) age of 68 (63-72) and a median (IQR) prostate volume of 42.51 (30.04-62.84). The patient population had a median (IQR) number of biopsy cores of 15 (12-17.50), and 26.06% of patients had a biopsy cores count of more than 15. After adjusting the baseline characteristics, the number of biopsy cores was associated with the worst pain during the biopsy procedure in both the perineal nerve block group ( ß 0.19, 95% CI: 0.12-0.26, P <0.001) and the periprostatic block group ( ß 0.16, 95% CI: 0.07-0.24, P <0.001). A similar association was also evident for the postbiopsy pain at 1, 6, and 24 h. A lesser degree of pain in both groups at any time (r range -0.57 to -0.01 for both groups) was associated with biopsy cores from the peripheral zone of the middle gland, while other locations were associated with a higher degree of pain. In addition, the location of the biopsy core had less of an effect on pain during the biopsy (r range -0.01-0.25 for both groups) than it did on postbiopsy pain (r range -0.57-0.60 for both groups). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial, biopsy core count and location were associated with pain in patients undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia. These results may be helpful for making clinical decisions about the anesthetic approach for scheduled transperineal prostate biopsies.

Perineal nerve block versus periprostatic block for patients undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy (APROPOS): a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled study.

Background: We aimed to investigate perineal nerve block versus periprostatic block in pain control for men undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy. Methods: In this prospective, randomised, blinded and parallel-group trial, men in six Chinese hospitals with suspected prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) at the point of local anaesthesia to receive a perineal nerve block or periprostatic block and followed by a transperineal prostate biopsy. Centres used their usual biopsy procedure. Operators who performed anaesthesia were trained in both techniques before the trial and were masked to the randomised allocation until the time of anaesthesia and were not involved in the subsequent biopsy procedure and any assessment or analysis. Other investigators and the patients were masked until trial completion. The primary outcome was the level of the worst pain experienced during the prostate biopsy procedure. Secondary outcomes included pain (post-biopsy at 1, 6 and 24 h), changes in blood pressure, heart rate and breathing rate during the biopsy procedure, external manifestations of pain during biopsy, anaesthesia satisfaction, the detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501055. Findings: Between August 13, 2020, and July 20, 2022, 192 men were randomly assigned to perineal nerve block or periprostatic block, 96 per study group. Perineal nerve block was superior for the relief of pain during the biopsy procedure (mean 2.80 for perineal nerve block and 3.98 for periprostatic block; adjusted difference in means -1.17, P < 0.001). Although the perineal nerve block had a lower mean pain score at 1 h post-biopsy compared with the periprostatic block (0.23 vs 0.43, P = 0.042), they were equivalent at 6 h (0.16 vs 0.25, P = 0.389) and 24 h (0.10 vs 0.26, P = 0.184) respectively. For the change in vital signs during biopsy procedure, perineal nerve block was significantly superior to periprostatic block in terms of maximum value of systolic blood pressure, maximum value of mean arterial pressure and maximum value of heart rate. There are no statistical differences in average value of systolic blood pressure, average value of mean, average value of heart rate, diastolic blood pressure and breathing rate. Perineal nerve block was also superior to periprostatic block in external manifestations of pain (1.88 vs 3.00, P < 0.001) and anaesthesia satisfaction (8.93 vs 11.90, P < 0.001). Equivalence was shown for the detection rate of PCa (31.25% for perineal nerve block and 29.17% for periprostatic block, P = 0.753) or csPCa (23.96% for perineal nerve block and 20.83% for periprostatic block, P = 0.604). 33 (34.8%) of 96 patients in the perineal nerve block group and 40 (41.67%) of 96 patients in the periprostatic block group had at least one complication. Interpretation: Perineal nerve block was superior to periprostatic block in pain control for men undergoing a transperineal prostate biopsy. Funding: Grant 2019YFC0119100 from the National Key Research and Development Program of China.

Anaesthesia in PROstate Biopsy Pain Obstruction Study: A Study Protocol for a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Study Evaluating the Efficacy of Perineal Nerve Block in Controlling Pain in Patients Undergoing Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.

Introduction: Transperineal prostate biopsy is as effective as the transrectal biopsy in detecting prostate cancer and has a lower risk of infection. However, concerning the procedural pain of the transperineal route, a higher level of anaesthesia is needed, which prevents this approach from being widely used. Although several methods of local anaesthesia to relieve pain during transperineal biopsy have been described, few well-designed trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of local anaesthesia. Methods: This is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled study in men suspected of having prostate cancer and planning to undergo transperineal prostate biopsy. The aim of this trial is to determine whether the perineal nerve block and periprostatic block relieve pain to different extents in men undergoing transperineal biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men aged between 18 and 80 years old, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 4-20 ng/ml, or/and suspicious rectal examination findings. A sample size of 190 participants, accounting for a 10% loss, is required. All participants will be randomly allocated at a ratio of 1:1 to the perineal nerve block (n = 95) and periprostatic block groups (n = 95). The primary outcome will be the level of the worst pain experienced during the transperineal prostate biopsy procedure, which will be measured by a numerical rating scale (NRS). The key secondary outcomes will include the pain severity score at 1, 6, and 24 h after prostate biopsy. Results: The primary outcome is the level of the worst pain experienced during the prostate biopsy procedure. The main secondary outcomes are as follows: (1) Post-biopsy pain severity score at 1, 6, and 24 h after the prostate biopsy; (2) Changes in blood pressure, heart rate and breathing rate during the biopsy procedure; (3) External manifestations of pain during biopsy; (4) Anaesthesia satisfaction; (5) The detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer and any prostate cancer. Conclusion: Anaesthesia in PROstate biopsy Pain Obstruction Study (APROPOS) is randomised controlled trial aiming to determine the efficacy of the perineal nerve block in controlling pain in patients undergoing prostate biopsy via the transperineal approach. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04501055.

A Multicenter Single-Arm Objective Performance Criteria Trial to Determine the Efficacy and Safety of High-Frequency Irreversible Electroporation as Primary Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Study Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The classical pathway for the therapy of low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer is radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy, which has shown a high incidence of complications, including erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel injury. An alternative pathway is to perform an ablation by some energy to the localized lesion, known as focal therapy. High-frequency irreversible electroporation (H-FIRE) is nonthermal energy that can be used in cancer ablation to deliver pulsed high-voltage but low-energy electric current to the cell membrane and to invoke cell death. An H-FIRE pathway has been reported to be tissue-selective, which leads to fewer side effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicenter and single-arm objective performance criteria (OPC) study, in which all men with localized prostate cancer are allocated to H-FIRE ablation. This trial will assess the efficacy and safety of the H-FIRE ablation for prostate cancer. Efficacy will be assessed by prostate biopsy 6 months after treatment while safety will be assessed by adverse event reports and questionnaires. The main inclusion criteria are moderate to low-risk prostate cancer in NCCN risk classification and had no previous therapy for prostate cancer. A sample size of 110 participants is required. The primary objective is to determine whether the detection rate of clinically significant cancer by prostate biopsy is less than 20% after the H-FIRE ablation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has obtained ethical approval by the ethics committee of all participating centers. The results of the study will be submitted for dissemination and publication in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter single-arm objective performance criteria trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of high-frequency irreversible electroporation in treating prostate cancer. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: A comprehensive evaluation of imaging and histopathology is used to determine the effect of treatment. Questionnaires were used to assess the treatment side effects. Multicenter and pragmatic designs capacitate higher generalizability. A limitation of this trial is that the prostate biopsy as an endpoint may not be as accurate as of the specimen from prostate prostatectomy. Another limitation is the 6-month follow-up time, making this trial challenging to come to firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of IRE in the long term. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03838432.

Prostate cancer risk prediction models in Eastern Asian populations: current status, racial difference, and future directions.

Prostate cancer (PCa) risk calculators (RCs) with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and other risk factors can greatly improve the accurate prediction of potential risk of PCa compared to PSA. The European Randomized Study of Screening for PCa Risk Calculator (ERSPC-RC) and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (PCPT-RC) are developed on the Western population. However, the Western RCs showed limited diagnostic efficacy in the Eastern Asian population, mainly due to racial differences between the two populations. We aimed to review the application of Western RCs and Eastern Asian RCs in Eastern Asian cohorts and to identify the characteristics and efficacy of these RCs.

Initial experience with a novel method for cognitive transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy.

A cognitive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy conducted by an experienced clinician enhances the detection rate of (high-grade) prostate cancer; however, this method is less successful in the hands of inexperienced surgeons. Therefore, an alternative method of conducting a cognitive MRI-targeted biopsy that can be successfully performed by the inexperienced clinicians should be developed. Ninety-six males suspected of prostate cancer were analyzed using systematic biopsy and cognitive MRI-targeted biopsy based on our novel three-dimensional matrix positioning method. Typically, the core principle of the latter procedure was to put the MRI and ultrasound images into the same virtual coordinate system. Afterward, the targeted biopsy was transformed to target a coordinate for the suspected lesion in the MRI. Subsequently, patients were assessed for the presence/absence of prostate cancer or high-grade prostate cancer. According to our results, the overall detection rate of prostate cancer was 70.8% (68/96), and the detection rate of high-grade prostate cancer was 56.3% (54/96). Specifically, the detection rate of prostate cancer by systematic biopsy was 54.2% (52/96) and that by targeted biopsy was 59.4% (57/96; P = 0.560). Clearly, the combined application of targeted biopsy could remarkably increase the detection rates of prostate cancer (P = 0.025) and high-grade prostate cancer (P = 0.009). Taken together, the findings of this study suggest that the combination of systematic biopsy with our three-dimensional matrix positioning-driven cognitive-targeted biopsy is superior to systematic biopsy in detecting prostate cancer and high-grade prostate cancer.

Trans-Perineal Template-Guided Mapping Biopsy vs. Freehand Trans-Perineal Biopsy in Chinese Patients With PSA < 20 ng/ml: Similar Cancer Detection Rate but Different Lesion Detection Rate.

The present study aimed to investigate the diagnostic efficacy and the regional location of prostate cancer (PCa) as well as the accuracy of assessment between trans-perineal template-guided mapping biopsy (TTMB) and freehand trans-perineal biopsy (FTPB) for men with PSA < 20 ng/ml. Thus, we evaluated 623 consecutive patients with PSA < 20 ng/ml who had prostate biopsies in our institute between July 2017 and September 2018. Patients were divided into two groups based on different biopsy methods: 217 (34.83%) patients with TTMB and 406 (65.17%) with FTPB. Thirty six patients with TTMB and 80 with FTPB had continued undergone radical prostatectomy after a cancer diagnosis. Then the Gleason score of the biopsy and the post-radical prostatectomy specimens in each patient were compared. Overall, the PCa detection rate was 34.35%. There was no significant difference in PCa detection rate between TTMB and FTPB (35.48 vs. 33.74%, respectively; p = 0.663). Besides, the detection rate of significant PCa (Gleason score ≥ 7) in TTMB was 29.03% while FTPB was 23.89% (p = 0.162). The detection rate at the apex of the prostate was higher than the detection rate at the base of the prostate (9.80 vs. 5.79%; p < 0.01) when performing the TTMB. The FTPB would miss 10% of the positive diagnosis and almost half of the lesions. The upgraded of Gleason score from biopsy to post-radical prostatectomy was 16.67% with the TTMB and 36.25% with the FTPB (p = 0.034). The TTMB had a similar cancer detection rate, but a higher lesion detection rate and more accuracy in assess the actual Gleason score when comparing to FTPB for men with PSA < 20 ng/ml. By performing a 20-core TTMB, the cancer detection rate at the apex of the prostate was higher than the base.