Adjusting the duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) based on nadir PSA for high risk localized prostate cancer patients treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy and ADT.

BACKGROUND: A nadir Prostate-Specific Antigen (nPSA) of 0.06 ng/mL has been shown to be a strong independent predictor of biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS) in patients with intermediate or high-risk (HR) prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiation therapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We aimed to examine the association between the duration of ADT and bRFS in HR localized prostate cancer, based on nPSA. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2015, 204 patients with HR localized prostate cancer were identified. Of them, 157 patients (77.0%) reached the desired nPSA of < 0.06 ng/mL (favorable group), while 47 (23.0%) did not (unfavorable group). Duration of ADT varied among patients depending on physician preference, patient tolerance, and/or compliance. Survival outcomes were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and predictors of outcomes using multi-variable cox regression model. RESULTS: In the favorable group, ADT for at least 12 months lead to superior bRFS compared to ≤ 9 months of ADT (P = 0.036). However, no significant difference was seen when examining the value of receiving ADT beyond 12, 18, or 24 months, respectively. On univariate analysis for bRFS, the use of ADT for at least 12 months was significant (P = 0.012) as well as time to nadir PSA (tnPSA), (≤ 6 vs > 6 months); (P = 0.043). The presenting T stage was borderline significant (HR 3.074; 95% CI 0.972-9.719; P = 0.056), while PSA at presentation, Gleason Score and age were not. On multivariate analysis, the use of ADT for 12 months (P = 0.012) and tnPSA (P = 0.037) remained significant. In the unfavorable group, receiving ADT beyond 9 and 12 months was associated with improved bRFS (P = 0.044 and 0.019, respectively). However, beyond 18 months, there was no significant difference. CONCLUSION: In HR localized prostate cancer patients treated with definitive RT and ADT, the total duration of ADT may be adjusted according to treatment response using nPSA. In patients reaching a nPSA below 0.06 ng/mL, a total of 12 months of ADT may be sufficient, while in those not reaching a nPSA below 0.06 ng/mL, a total duration of 18 months is required.

Management of patients with high-risk and advanced prostate cancer in the Middle East: resource-stratified consensus recommendations.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer care in the Middle East is highly variable and access to specialist multidisciplinary management is limited. Academic tertiary referral centers offer cutting-edge diagnosis and treatment; however, in many parts of the region, patients are managed by non-specialists with limited resources. Due to many factors including lack of awareness and lack of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, a high percentage of men present with locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis. The aim of these recommendations is to assist clinicians in managing patients with different levels of access to diagnostic and treatment modalities. METHODS: The first Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) satellite meeting for the Middle East was held in Beirut, Lebanon, November 2017. During this meeting a consortium of urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologist and imaging specialists practicing in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia voted on a selection of consensus questions. An additional workshop to formulate resource-stratified consensus recommendations was held in March 2019. RESULTS: Variations in practice based on available resources have been proposed to form resource-stratified recommendations for imaging at diagnosis, initial management of localized prostate cancer requiring therapy, treatment of castration-sensitive/naïve advanced prostate cancer and treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: This is the first regional consensus on prostate cancer management from the Middle East. The following recommendations will be useful to urologists and oncologists practicing in all areas with limited access to specialist multi-disciplinary teams, diagnostic modalities and treatment resources.

Ki-67 expression predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in the setting of positive surgical margins.

BACKGROUND: Positive surgical margin (PSM) is a predictor of biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP). Attempts to stratify PSM based on linear length, Gleason score, location and number have failed to add to predictive models using margin status alone. We evaluated the prognostic significance of Ki-67 expression in this setting. METHODS: Immunohistochemical staining for Ki-67 was done on prostatectomy specimens from 117 patients who had a PSM. Ki67 expression was measured at the margin and in the index lesion. Patients were dichotomized based on Ki-67 expression into three groups. Group 1 with no Ki-67 expression, Group 2 with Ki-67 ≤ 2%, and Group 3 with Ki-67 ≥ 3%. To eliminate the impact of the adjuvant treatment (AT) on the outcome, data were analyzed by the Cox proportional hazards in which AT was Considered as a time-dependent covariate. RESULTS: The discordance rate of Ki-67 expression between matched index lesion and margin specimens was 44/117 (37.6%). There was a trend for higher risk of BCR (HR:2.06, (0.97-4.43), P = 0.06) in patients expressing high Ki67 at the surgical margin although this was not statistically significant. However High Ki-67 expression in the index lesion was an independent predictive factor for BCR in this subset of patients. (HR:4, (1.64-9.80), P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: High Ki67 expression in the index prostate cancer lesion is an independent predictor of BCR in patients with positive surgical margin following radical prostatectomy. Our findings need to be validated in a larger cohort.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Report from the 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Innovations have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer (PC). Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of topics that greatly impact daily practice. The 2024 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) surveyed experts on key questions in clinical management in order to supplement evidence-based guidelines. Here we present voting results for questions from APCCC 2024. METHODS: Before the conference, a panel of 120 international PC experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 183 multiple-choice consensus questions on eight different topics. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the voting panel members ("panellists"). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Consensus was a priori defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. The voting results show varying degrees of consensus, as discussed in this article and detailed in the Supplementary material. These findings do not include a formal literature review or meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The voting results can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers in prioritising areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised on the basis of patient and cancer characteristics, and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2024 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

Comparative analysis of partial versus radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Is oncologic safety compromised during nephron sparing in higher stage disease?

Objectives: Over the past 20 years, the utility of partial nephrectomy (PN), compared to radical nephrectomy (RN), for the management of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has progressively increased, particularly for larger and more complex masses. We sought to compare the recurrence-free survival (RFS) outcomes of PN versus RN in a single-institution cohort. Methods: Between 2002 and 2017, 228 patients underwent RN or PN for lcT1a-T2b, N0M0 RCC at a single tertiary referral center, performed by five surgeons. The clinical end point result was (local or distant) RFS. Univariate and multivariate (cox regression) models were used to evaluate the association between type of surgery (PN vs. RN) and RFS, in the overall cohort and in a subgroup of patients with cT1b. Results: The median age was 59 (interquartile range [IQR] 48-66), and the median tumor size was 4.5 cm (IQR 3-7). There were 128 PN and 100 RN. Over a median follow-up of 4.2 years (IQR 2.2-6.9), the Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant RFS difference between PN and RN (logrank P = 0.53). On multivariate analysis, pathologic stage ≥T2a, Fuhrman Grade ≥3, and chromophobe histology were associated with a worse RFS. PN was not significantly associated with diminished RFS (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-4.3, P = 0.199) in the overall cohort compared to RN. However, in the cT1b subgroup, PN was associated with a significant increase in recurrence compared to RN (HR = 12.4, 95% CI 1.45-133.4, P = 0.038). Conclusions: Our institutional data highlight the possibility of compromise in RFS for clinically localized RCC treated with PN compared to RN, particularly for larger and more complex masses. These data raise concern, especially in light of the nonproven association of survival benefit of PN over RN, warranting future randomized prospective studies for further evaluation.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

MRI/US fusion transperineal versus transrectral biopsy of prostate cancer: Outcomes and complication rates, a tertiary medical center experience in the Middle East.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the outcomes of transperineal versus transrectal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate including detection of clinically significant cancer and complications. This is the first and largest series in the Middle East. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between May 2019 and June 2020, 145 patients with suspicious lesions on magnetic resonance imaging underwent magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy at our center. Transperineal biopsy was performed under light sedation, while transrectal biopsy patients had a periprostatic block for anesthesia. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason ≥3+4 Results: In all, 98 transperineal biopsies and 47 transrectal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsies were done. Patients had similar prebiopsy parameters (transperineal vs. transrectal): median age (64.5 vs. 66 years; P=.68), median prostate-specific antigen value (7.5 vs. 7.5; P=.42), and median prostate volume (51 vs. 52.5; P=.83). Those that underwent transperineal biopsy had fewer average total number of cores compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (11 vs. 13; P=.025) fewer average number of random cores (3 vs. 6; P < .0001), and the detection rate of clinically significant cancer was similar between the groups (44% vs. 48.9%; P=.57). No difference in hematuria, retention, and sepsis rate requiring admission (1 vs. 2; P=.2) was observed. However, more patients had urinary tract infection in the transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy group compared to transperineal biopsy group (5 vs. 1; P=.006) that were treated with antibiotics on outside basis. CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound transperineal fusion biopsy has similar detection rate of clinically significant cancer compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy with less urinary tract infection post biopsy.

The R.E.N.A.L score's relevance in determining perioperative and oncological outcomes: a Middle-Eastern tertiary care center experience.

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the significance of the R.E.N.A.L nephrometry scoring system in predicting perioperative and oncological outcomes and determining the surgical approach of choice for kidney tumors.Patients and Methods: Our study retrospectively reviewed outcomes from the year 2002 to 2017. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables and chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable cox proportional hazard regression were performed to determine an association between the different R.E.N.A.L categories and disease recurrence or mortality. Results: A total of 325 patients underwent kidney surgery The most common R.E.N.A.L score category in our cohort study was intermediate (41.2%), followed by low, (33.2%) and high (25.5%). Patients with a high R.E.N.A.L score had worse perioperative outcomes compared to those with a low R.E.N.A.L score. High R.E.N.A.L score patients were 3 times more likely to receive blood transfusions compared to those with a low R.E.N.A.L score (19.4% vs 6.3%, p = 0.018), and a statistically significant longer hospital length of stay was also observed between the two groups (median 4.5 vs 4 days, p = 0.0419). In addition, the only predictor of disease recurrence or mortality was a high R.E.N.A.L score (Hazard Ratio (HR) 3.65, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.05-12.7, p = 0.041). Conclusion: Our study sheds light on the use of R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score in predicting perioperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes. Such findings may play a role in optimizing surgical approaches and pre-operative patient counseling.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Aquablation for benign prostatic obstruction: Single center technique evolution and experience.

PURPOSE: Aquablation is a new technology that relies on real-time ultrasound guidance to ablate prostatic tissues using high velocity pressurized water. We hereby present our data and experience in this technique by exploring the perioperative surgical and functional outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospectively filled study including consecutive patients who underwent aquablation at our Middle Eastern tertiary care center. Patient demographics, voiding parameters, and prostate disease specific variables were collected. We reported on the surgical and functional outcomes as well as the 3-month adverse events. We also explored the trend in hemoglobin drop and hemostasis method by dividing the consecutive cases into four temporal periods. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients underwent aquablation between March 2018 and March 2020. Mean time from transrectal ultrasound to Foley insertion was 48.5±2.5 minutes. Cautery was performed in 35 patients (59.3%) and a catheter-tensioning device was mounted in 50 patients (84.7%). On average, the hemoglobin dropped by -1.7±0.2 ng/dL (p<0.0001). The average length of catheterization and hospital stay were 2.1±0.3 days and 2.2±0.1 days, respectively. Only three patients (5.1%) were re-hospitalized. At three months, the average drop in serum prostate-specific antigen was -36.6±6.0% (p<0.0001) and functional outcomes considerably improved. We also recorded 14 adverse events in 13 patients (overall rate of 22.0%), with grade 1 and grade 2 complications comprising 71.4% of all adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results confirm the safety and efficacy of the aquablation procedure in the adoption phase.

Outcomes of active surveillance for clinically localized prostate cancer in a middle eastern tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to evaluate the outcome of active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer for a cohort of patients at our institution. METHODS: A total of 43 patients with low risk prostate cancer were enrolled in an active surveillance pilot program at our institution between 2008 and 2018. Follow up protocols included: periodic prostate specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE), multiparametric MRI, and prostate biopsy at one year. Pertinent parameters were collected, and descriptive statistics were reported along with a subset analysis of patients that dropped out of the protocol to receive active treatment for disease progression. RESULTS: Out of 43 eligible patients, 46.5% had a significant rise in follow up PSA. DRE was initially suspicious in 27.9% of patients, and none had any change in DRE on follow up. Initially, prostate MRIs showed PIRADS 3, 4, and 5 in 14%, 37.2%, and 11.6% respectively, while 23.2% had a negative initial MRI. 14% did not have an MRI. Upon follow up, 18.6% of patients had progression on MRI. Initial biopsies revealed that 86% were classified as WHO group 1, while 14% as WHO group 2. With regards to the follow up biopsies, 11.6% were upgraded. 20.9% of our patients had active treatment; 44.4% due to upgraded biopsy results, 22.2% due to PSA progression, 22.2% due to strong patient preference, and 11.1% due to radiologic progression. CONCLUSIONS: For selected men with low risk prostate cancer, AS is a reasonable alternative. The decision for active treatment should be tailored upon changes in PSA, DRE, MRI, and biopsy results.

Magnetic resonance imaging /ultrasonography fusion transperineal prostate biopsy for prostate cancer: Initial experience at a Middle Eastern tertiary medical centre.

Objective: To report on the outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasonography (US)-fusion transperineal prostate (TP) biopsy at a tertiary medical centre in the Middle East including detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), complications, and tolerability of the procedure. Patients and methods: Between May 2019 and June 2020, 98 MRI/US-fusion TP biopsies were performed in the US suite using light sedation. All patients had pre-biopsy 3-T multiparametric MRI. Data on patient characteristics, PCa detection rate and complication rates were collected retrospectively. A Gleason score ≥3 + 4 was defined as csPCa. RESULTS: There were 98 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 65 (9.1) years, and a median (SD) prostate-specific antigen level prior to biopsy of 7.53 (12.97) ng/mL and prostate volume of 51 (31.1) mL. PCa was detected in 54 (55%) patients, with csPCa detected in 43 (44%). A total of 124 Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 lesions were targeted. Grade Group ≥2 PCa was found in 35.5% of the targeted lesions. Random biopsies detected one csPCa Gleason score 3 + 4 in one patient with a negative target. None of the patients had post-biopsy haematuria or retention. Only one patient developed acute prostatitis requiring in-patient intravenous antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: MRI/US-fusion TP biopsy has an adequate detection rate of csPCa with minimal complications and low infection rates after biopsy. This is one of the first TP biopsy series in the Middle East paving the way for wider adoption in the region. ABBREVIATIONS: AS: active surveillance; AUR: acute urinary retention; GG: Grade Group; IQR: interquartile range; mpMRI: multiparametric MRI; (cs)PCa: (clinically significant) prostate cancer; PI-RADS: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System; TP: transperineal; US: ultrasonography; TRUS: transrectal Ultrasound guided.

Use of Bariatric Ports in 4-Arm Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Comparative Study With the Standard 3-Arm Technique.

Objectives We aim to compare the outcomes of a 3-arm versus a 4-arm robotic assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) using the da Vinci Si model; as well as, illustrate the deployment of long ports to decrease arm collision during the 4-arm approach. Patients and Methods Results of RAPN in a Middle Eastern tertiary referral center from August 2013 to December 2017 are reported. Comparison between 3 versus 4-arm robotic approaches was done in regards to patient and tumor characteristics, operative parameters, and postoperative outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student's t-test and chi-squared test. Results Forty consecutive 3-arm RAPNs and 40 consecutive 4-arm RAPNs were retrospectively evaluated. Differences in tumor complexity between the two groups were statistically insignificant. Similarly, surgical margin positivity, mean ischemia time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and mean change in serum creatinine were statistically insignificant between the two groups. Mean operative time was significantly shorter by 42 minutes in the 4-arm vs 3-arm group (p=0.01). Conclusions The addition of a 4th arm in RAPN can be of benefit in centers that still rely on the da Vinci Si model. The ease of hilar dissection, retraction, and surgeon independence instigated a statistically significant decrease in operative time with 4-arm use.

Comparative analysis of histopathological subtypes of renal cell carcinoma in the Middle East compared to other world regions.

INTRODUCTION: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has various histopathological tumor subtypes which have a significant implication on the oncological outcome of these patients. We aimed to evaluate the distribution of RCC subtypes presenting at a tertiary care center in the Middle East, in comparison to the distribution reported in different geographic areas worldwide. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on all patients who underwent partial or radical nephrectomy for RCC at the American University of Beirut Medical Center between January 2012 and January 2018. Data on histologic subtypes were compiled and compared to representative series from different continents. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-nine patients with RCC were identified, of whom 122 (68.2%) were classified as clear cell, 30 (16.8%) as papillary, 17 (9.5%) as chromophobe, and 10 (5.6%) as unclassified. When compared to other regions of the world, this Middle Eastern series demonstrated a higher prevalence of the chromophobe subtype compared to Western populations (9.5% in the Middle East vs. 5.3% in the US and 3.1% in Europe) and a lower prevalence of clear cell subtype (68.2% in the Middle East vs. 78.7% in the US and 85.8% in Europe). Conversely, there was a higher prevalence of papillary RCC in the Middle East (16.8%) compared to North America (13.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.7-13.6), Europe (11.1%, 95% CI: 10.0-12.1), and Australia (10.2%). The prevalence of chromophobe and clear cell RCC in the Middle East was similar to that reported in South America. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of RCC subtypes in this Middle Eastern cohort was significantly different from that reported in the Western hemisphere (Europe and the US) but similar to that reported in South America and Australia. These findings may point to a possible genetic predisposition underlying the global variation in distribution.

High rates of advanced prostate cancer in the Middle East: Analysis from a tertiary care center.

OBJECTIVES: Prostate cancer incidence is increasing in the Middle East (ME); however, the data of stage at the diagnosis and treatment outcomes are lacking. In developed countries, the incidence of de novo metastatic prostate cancer ranges between 4% and 14%. We hypothesized that the rates of presentation with advanced disease are significantly higher in the ME based on clinical observation. This study aims to examine the stage at the presentation of patients with prostate cancer at a large tertiary center in the ME. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, we identified the patients diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma and presented to a tertiary care center between January 2010 and July 2015. Clinical, demographic, and pathological characteristics were abstracted. Patients with advanced disease were stratified according to tumor volume based on definitions from practice changing clinical trials. Descriptive and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used. RESULTS: A total of 559 patients were identified, with a median age at the diagnosis of 65 years and an age range of 39-94 years. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at the presentation was 10 ng/ml, and almost a quarter of the men (23%) presented with metastatic disease. The most common site of metastasis was the bone (34/89, 38%). High-volume metastasis was present in 30.3%, 9%, and 5.2% of the cohort based on STAMPEDE, CHAARTED, and LATITUDE trial criteria, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the first report showing the high proportion of men from ME presenting with de novo metastasis. This could be due to many factors, including the highly variable access to specialist multidisciplinary management, lack of awareness, and lack of PSA screening in the region. There is a clear need to raise the awareness about prostate cancer screening and early detection and to address the rising burden of advanced prostate cancer affecting men in the ME region.

Consensus on Prostate Cancer Treatment of Localized Disease With Very Low, Low, and Intermediate Risk: A Report From the First Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference for Developing Countries (PCCCDC).

PURPOSE: A group of international urology and medical oncology experts developed and completed a survey on prostate cancer (PCa) in developing countries. The results are reviewed and summarized, and recommendations on consensus statements for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa focused on developing countries were developed. METHODS: A panel of experts developed more than 300 survey questions of which 66 questions concern the principal areas of interest of this paper: very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries. A larger panel of 99 international multidisciplinary cancer experts voted on these questions to create the recommendations for treatment and follow-up for very low-, low-, and intermediate-risk PCa in areas of limited resources discussed in this manuscript. RESULTS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on the predefined questions. Each question was deemed consensus if 75% or more of the full panel had selected a particular answer. These answers are based on panelist opinion not a literature review or meta-analysis. For questions that refer to an area of limited resources, the recommendations consider cost-effectiveness and the possible therapies with easier and greater access. Each question had five to seven relevant answers including two nonanswers. The results were tabulated in real time. CONCLUSION: The voting results and recommendations presented in this document can be used by physicians to support management for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in areas of limited resources. Individual clinical decision making should be supported by available data; however, as guidelines for treatment for very low, low, and intermediate risk of PCa in developing countries have not been developed, this document will serve as a point of reference when confronted with this disease.

Solitary Metastasis of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma to the Testicle Detected by 68Ga-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography.

We present a case of a 79-year-old man with prostate cancer with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and hormonal therapy. 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) was performed to look for recurrent disease, and a solitary metastasis to the left testicle was detected. This case report highlights the importance of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in detecting unusual metastatic lesions from prostate cancer in patients with biochemical recurrence.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Middle East: A report on the perioperative outcomes from a tertiary care centre in Lebanon.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the surgical, oncological and early functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at our tertiary care centre, as there is a scarcity of reports on outcomes of robotic surgery from the Middle East. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the electronic health records for patients undergoing RARP between 2013 and 2019 at the American University of Beirut Medical Center. We collected patients' demographics and preoperative oncological factors including prostate-specific antigen (PSA), clinical oncological stage, and World Health Organization (WHO) grade. PSA persistence, biochemical recurrence (BCR) and positive surgical margin (PSM) were reported. Complications were categorised by Clavien-Dindo grade. Moreover, the postoperative oncological outcomes including the rates of adjuvant and salvage androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT), chemotherapy, and metastasis were reported. Additionally continence and potency results were retrieved. RESULTS: For the designated period, 250 patients underwent RARP of which 182 (72.8%) underwent lymph node dissection. The median (interquartile range) anaesthesia time was 330 (285-371) min and the estimated blood loss was 200 (200-300) mL. The overall complication rate was 8%, with 2% Clavien-Dindo Grade III-IV complications. The PSM and BCR rates were 21.6% and 6.4%, respectively. Adjuvant ADT and EBRT was administered to 7.2% of the patients. Functional data was available for 112 patients. Continence was 68%, 82% and 97% of the patients at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. For 65 patients who had bilateral nerve sparing potency was 37%, 60% and 83% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the largest RARP series from the Middle East. The surgical, oncological and functional outcomes are consistent with those published in the literature. This confirms the safety and efficacy of applying robotic technology in our region during the implementation phase.Abbreviations: ADT: androgen-deprivation therapy; AJCC: American Joint Committee on Cancer; AUBMC: American University of Beirut Medical Center; BCR: biochemical recurrence; CPT: Current Procedural Terminology; EBRT external beam radiation therapy; IQR, interquartile ranges; LOS: length of stay; PLND: pelvic lymph node dissection; PSM: positive surgical margin; (O)(RA)RP, (open) (robot-assisted) radical prostatectomy.