Measuring cancer burden in prostatic needle core biopsies: simplified assessments outperform complex measurements in assessing outcome: evidence to assist pathologist efficiency and minimize datasets.

AIMS: The optimal method of measuring cancer extent in prostate cancer (PCa) biopsies is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nine hundred eighty-one men with clinically localised PCa managed conservatively were reviewed with follow up. The number of positive cores (NPC), the Maximum Cancer Length in a core (MCL), Total Cancer Length (TCL), and percentage of positive cores (%+cores) was calculated and univariate and multivariate analysis performed using prostate-specific antigen (PSA), T-stage, and Gleason score. The presence of stromal gaps (SG) was recorded. Univariate models were run where SG made a difference to the MCL. All variables showed significant association with PCa death in univariate models. In multivariate models, incorporating PSA, T-stage, and Gleason score, only %+cores was a significant predictor of outcome, with a 10% increase in %+cores resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.07 (likelihood-ratio test P > Χ2  = 0.01). There were 120 patients where SG made a difference to the MCL and a total of 20 events in this group. Including SG, on univariate analysis the median MCL was 10 mm and HR was 1.16 (P = 0.007), not including SG, the median MCL was 6 mm and HR was 1.23 (P = 6.3 × 10-4 ). Inclusion or exclusion of SG made no significant difference to TCL as a predictor of outcome. CONCLUSION: Cancer extent is a strong predictor of PCa death but only %+cores added to the multivariate model. Expressed as a fraction of NPC/total number of cores, this is the simplest method of assessment, which we favour over more complicated methods in nontargeted biopsies.

Feasibility of aspirin and/or vitamin D3 for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance with Prolaris® testing.

Objectives: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of aspirin and/or vitamin D3 in active surveillance (AS) low/favourable intermediate risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients with Prolaris® testing. Patients and Methods: Newly-diagnosed low/favourable intermediate risk PCa patients (PSA ≤ 15 ng/ml, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group ≤2, maximum biopsy core length <10 mm, clinical stage ≤cT2c) were recruited into a multi-centre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (ISRCTN91422391, NCT03103152). Participants were randomised to oral low dose (100 mg), standard dose (300 mg) aspirin or placebo and/or vitamin D3 (4000 IU) versus placebo in a 3 × 2 factorial RCT design with biopsy tissue Prolaris® testing. The primary endpoint was trial acceptance/entry rates. Secondary endpoints included feasibility of Prolaris® testing, 12-month disease re-assessment (imaging/biochemical/histological), and 12-month treatment adherence/safety. Disease progression was defined as any of the following (i) 50% increase in baseline PSA, (ii) new Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4/5 lesion(s) on multi-parametric MRI where no previous lesion, (iii) 33% volume increase in lesion size, or radiological upstaging to ≥T3, (iv) ISUP Grade Group upgrade or (v) 50% increase in maximum cancer core length. Results: Of 130 eligible patients, 104 (80%) accepted recruitment from seven sites over 12 months, of which 94 patients represented the per protocol population receiving treatment. Prolaris® testing was performed on 76/94 (81%) diagnostic biopsies. Twelve-month disease progression rate was 43.3%. Assessable 12-month treatment adherence in non-progressing patients to aspirin and vitamin D across all treatment arms was 91%. Two drug-attributable serious adverse events in 1 patient allocated to aspirin were identified. The study was not designed to determine differences between treatment arms. Conclusion: Recruitment of AS PCa patients into a multi-centre multi-arm placebo-controlled RCT of minimally-toxic adjunctive oral drug treatments with molecular biomarker profiling is acceptable and safe. A larger phase III study is needed to determine optimal agents, intervention efficacy, and outcome-associated biomarkers.