Urinary Incontinence and Sexual Function After the Introduction of NeuroSAFE in Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nerve-sparing (NS) radical prostatectomy (RP) results in better functional outcomes. Intraoperative neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen section examination (NeuroSAFE) significantly increases the frequency of NS surgery. The effect of NeuroSAFE on postoperative erectile function (EF) and continence is not yet clear. OBJECTIVE: To describe EF and continence outcomes for men undergoing RP with the NeuroSAFE technique. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between September 2018 and February 2021, 1034 men underwent robot-assisted RP. Data for patient-reported outcomes were collected via validated questionnaires. INTERVENTION: NeuroSAFE technique for RP. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Continence was assessed using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF) or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short form (EPIC-26) and defined as use of 0-1 pads/d. EF was evaluated using EPIC-26 or the International Index of Erectile Function short form (IIEF-5), with data converted according to the Vertosick method and categorized. Descriptive statistics were used to asses and describe tumor characteristics and continence and EF outcomes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 1034 men who underwent RP after introduction of the NeuroSAFE technique, 63% and 60% completed a preoperative and at least one postoperative questionnaire on continence and EF, respectively. Of the men who underwent unilateral or bilateral NS surgery, use of 0-1 pads/d was reported by 93% after 1 yr and 96% after 2 yr; the corresponding rates for men who underwent non-NS surgery were 86% and 78%. Overall, use of 0-1 pads/d was reported by 92% of the men at 1 yr and by 94% at 2 yr after RP. Men in the NS group had a good or intermediate Vertosick score after RP more often than the non-NS group. Overall, 44% of the men had a good or intermediate Vertosick score at 1 and 2 yr after RP. CONCLUSIONS: After introduction of the NeuroSAFE technique, the continence rate was 92% at 1 yr and 94% at 2 yr after RP. The NS group had a greater percentage of men with an intermediate or good Vertosick score and a higher continence rate after RP in comparison to the non-NS group. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study shows that after introduction of the NeuroSAFE technique during removal of the prostate, the continence rate among patients was 92% at 1 year and 94% at 2 years after surgery. Some 44% of the men had a good or intermediate score for erectile function 1 and 2 years after surgery.

Relationship Between Baseline Prostate-specific Antigen on Cancer Detection and Prostate Cancer Death: Long-term Follow-up from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-based strategy for prostate cancer screening based on the first prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and age. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of the first PSA level on prostate cancer (PCa) detection and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in a population-based screening trial (repeat screening every 2-4 yr). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We evaluated 25589 men aged 55-59 yr, 16898 men aged 60-64 yr, and 12936 men aged 65-69 yr who attended at least one screening visit in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial (screening arm: repeat PSA testing every 2-4 yr and biopsy in cases with elevated PSA; control arm: no active screening offered) during 16-yr follow-up (FU). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We assessed the actuarial probability for any PCa and for clinically significant (cs)PCa (Gleason ≥7). Cox proportional-hazards regression was performed to assess whether the association between baseline PSA and PCSM was comparable for all age groups. A Lorenz curve was computed to assess the association between baseline PSA and PCSM for men aged 60-61 yr. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The overall actuarial probability at 16 yr ranged from 12% to 16% for any PCa and from 3.7% to 5.7% for csPCa across the age groups. The actuarial probability of csPCa at 16 yr ranged from 1.2-1.5% for men with PSA <1.0 ng/ml to 13.3-13.8% for men with PSA ≥3.0 ng/ml. The association between baseline PSA and PCSM differed marginally among the three age groups. A Lorenz curve for men aged 60-61 yr showed that 92% of lethal PCa cases occurred among those with PSA above the median (1.21 ng/ml). In addition, for men initially screened at age 60-61 yr with baseline PSA <2 ng/ml, further continuation of screening is unlikely to be beneficial after the age of 68-70 yr if PSA is still <2 ng/ml. No case of PCSM emerged in the subsequent 8 yr (up to age 76-78 yr). A limitation is that these results may not be generalizable to an opportunistic screening setting or to contemporary clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: In all age groups, baseline PSA can guide decisions on the repeat screening interval. Baseline PSA of <1.0 ng/ml for men aged 55-69 yr is a strong indicator to delay or stop further screening. PATIENT SUMMARY: In prostate cancer screening, the patient's baseline PSA (prostate-specific antigen) level can be used to guide decisions on when to repeat screening. The PSA test when used according to current knowledge is valuable in helping to reduce the burden of prostate cancer.

Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting.

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined. Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa. Design setting and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline. Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa. Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

Prostate cancer risk assessment by the primary care physician and urologist: transabdominal- versus transrectal ultrasound prostate volume-based use of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator.

Background: Our objective was to assess the accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) measured prostate volume in the primary care setting with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) measured prostate volume by the urologist as the reference test. Furthermore, our objective was to assess whether risk-stratification using TAUS prostate volume by the primary care physician could reduce unnecessary referrals to the urologist. Methods: Men in two Dutch primary care offices with a prostate cancer (PCa) screening request received a digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate specific-antigen (PSA), and TAUS prostate volume measurement by the general practitioner, followed by Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC) risk assessment. The examination was repeated by a urologist using TRUS. A prostate biopsy was performed in case of a RPCRC positive biopsy advice. A non-inferiority analysis was performed comparing TAUS and TRUS prostate volume differences. A risk-based referral strategy using TAUS and the RPCRC in the primary care setting was compared with the standard referral strategy based on PSA (≥3 ng/mL) and DRE. Results: A total of 105 men were included with a median PSA of 1.9 ng/mL. The mean prostate volumes measured by TAUS and TRUS were 55 and 45 mL, respectively. The mean overestimation of the prostate volume by TAUS as compared to the reference test was 9.9 mL (95% CI: 5.9-13.8). According to Dutch standard practice, 41 out of 105 (39%) men would have been referred to the urologist. Stratification in primary care based on the RPCRC using TAUS prostate volume would have avoided 29 out of the 41 (71%) referrals, at the expense of non-referral of 5 out of 11 (45%) men with a biopsy indication, according to the urologist. Conclusions: RPCRC-based risk stratification in primary care using TAUS prostate volume measurement is feasible and may prevent unnecessary referrals to the urologist and reduce costs. The accuracy of the risk assessment with TAUS might be improved by sufficient training and centralization to achieve a higher volume of consultations in primary care facilities.

Sewage surveillance system using urological wastewater: Key to COVID-19 monitoring?

Since December 2019, the emergence of a new Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome- coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a global coronavirus pandemic disease (COVID-19), with devastating consequences for all healthcare worldwide, including urological care. COVID-19 has led to concern among urological healthcare workers about viral presence, detection and routes of transmission during routine clinical practice. The potential presence of (active) virus in bodily fluids of COVID-19 patients remains a continuing topic of debate. Therefore, we highlight viral detection methods and review the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in urine, feces, and semen. Finally, we discuss how excretion of virus particles through urological bodily fluids might be pivotal to epidemiologic monitoring and control of the disease.

Active Surveillance for Men Younger than 60 Years or with Intermediate-risk Localized Prostate Cancer. Descriptive Analyses of Clinical Practice in the Movember GAP3 Initiative.

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is a management option for men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Opinions differ on whether it is safe to include young men (≤60 yr) or men with intermediate-risk disease. Objective: To assess whether reasons for discontinuation, treatment choice after AS, and adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy (RP; N1, or ≥GG3, or ≥pT3) differ for men ≤60 yr or those with European Association of Urology (EAU) intermediate-risk disease from those for men >60 yr or those with EAU low-risk disease. Design setting and participants: We analyzed data from 5411 men ≤60 yr and 14 959 men >60 yr, 14 064 men with low-risk cancer, and 2441 men with intermediate-risk cancer, originating from the GAP3 database (21 169 patients/27 cohorts worldwide). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Cumulative incidence curves were used to estimate the rates of AS discontinuation and treatment choice. Results and limitations: The probability of discontinuation of AS due to disease progression at 5 yr was similar for men aged ≤60 yr (22%) and those >60 yr (25%), as well as those of any age with low-risk disease (24%) versus those with intermediate-risk disease (24%). Men with intermediate-risk disease are more prone to discontinue AS without evidence of progression than men with low-risk disease (at 1/5 yr: 5.9%/14.2% vs 2.0%/8.8%). Adverse pathology at RP was observed in 32% of men ≤60 yr compared with 36% of men >60 yr (p = 0.029), and in 34% with low-risk disease compared with 40% with intermediate-risk disease (p = 0.048). Conclusions: Our descriptive analysis of AS practices worldwide showed that the risk of progression during AS is similar across the age and risk groups studied. The proportion of adverse pathology was higher among men >60 yr than among men ≤60 yr. These results suggest that men ≤60 yr and those with EAU intermediate-risk disease should not be excluded from opting for AS as initial management. Patient summary: Data from 27 international centers reflecting daily clinical practice suggest that younger men or men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer do not hold greater risk for disease progression during active surveillance.

NeuroSAFE in radical prostatectomy increases the rate of nerve-sparing surgery without affecting oncological outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of intra-operative neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) on the rate of nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) and oncological outcome in a large radical prostatectomy (RP) cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2016 and December 2020, 1756 prostate cancer patients underwent robot-assisted RP, of whom 959 (55%) underwent this with NeuroSAFE and 797 (45%) without (control cohort). In cases where NeuroSAFE showed tumour in the margin, a secondary resection was performed. The effect of NeuroSAFE on NSS and positive surgical margin (PSM) status was analysed using logistic regression. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Patients in the NeuroSAFE cohort had a higher tumour grade (P < 0.001) and clinical stage (P < 0.001) than those in the control cohort. NeuroSAFE enabled more frequent NSS for both pT2 (93% vs 76%; P < 0.001) and pT3 disease (83% vs 55%; P < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, NeuroSAFE resulted in more frequent unilateral (odds ratio [OR] 3.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.90-5.30; P < 0.001) and bilateral (OR 5.22, 95% CI 3.90-6.98; P < 0.001) NSS. While the PSM rate decreased from 51% to 42% in patients with pT3 stage disease (P = 0.031), NeuroSAFE was not an independent predictor of PSM status (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.06; P = 0.2) in the entire cohort. Patients who underwent NeuroSAFE had better BCRFS compared to the control cohort (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.84; P = 0.002). This study is limited by its comparison with a historical cohort and lack of functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: NeuroSAFE enables more unilateral and bilateral NSS without negatively affecting surgical margin status and biochemical recurrence. This validation study provides a comprehensive overview of the implementation, evaluation and intra-operative decision making associated with NeuroSAFE in clinical practice.

A Prospective Multicenter Comparison Study of Risk-adapted Ultrasound-directed and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-naïve Men.

BACKGROUND: European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-adjusted biopsy strategy for early detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. It remains unclear which strategy is most effective. Therefore, we evaluated two risk assessment pathways commonly used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of a risk-based ultrasound (US)-directed pathway (Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator [RPCRC] #3; US volume assessment) and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed pathway. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective multicenter study (MR-PROPER) with 1:1 allocation among 21 centers (US arm in 11 centers, MRI arm in ten). Biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer (age ≥50 yr, prostate-specific antigen 3.0-50 ng/ml, ± abnormal digital rectal examination) were included. INTERVENTION: Biopsy-naïve men with elevated risk of prostate cancer, determined using RPCRC#3 in the US arm and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores of 3-5 in the MRI arm, underwent systematic biopsies (US arm) or targeted biopsies (MRI arm). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the proportion of men with grade group (GG) ≥2 cancer. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of biopsies avoided and GG 1 cancers detected. Categorical (nonparametric) data were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1965 men were included in the intention-to-treat population (US arm n = 950, MRI arm n = 1015). The US and MRI pathways detected GG ≥2 cancers equally well (235/950, 25% vs 239/1015, 24%; difference 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.6% to 5.0%; p = 0.5). The US pathway detected more GG 1 cancers than the MRI pathway (121/950, 13% vs 84/1015, 8.3%; difference 4.5%, 95% CI 1.8-7.2%; p < 0.01). The US pathway avoided fewer biopsies than the MRI pathway (403/950, 42% vs 559/1015, 55%; difference -13%, 95% CI -17% to -8.3%; p < 0.01). Among men with elevated risk, more GG ≥2 cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the US group (52% vs 43%; difference 9.2%, 95% CI 3.0-15%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Risk-adapted US-directed and MRI-directed pathways detected GG ≥2 cancers equally well. The risk-adapted US-directed pathway performs well for prostate cancer diagnosis if prostate MRI capacity and expertise are not available. If prostate MRI availability is sufficient, risk assessment should preferably be performed using MRI, as this avoids more biopsies and detects fewer cases of GG 1 cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men with suspected prostate cancer, relevant cancers were equally well detected by risk-based pathways using either ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide biopsy of the prostate. If prostate MRI availability is sufficient, risk assessment should be performed with MRI to reduce unnecessary biopsies and detect fewer irrelevant cancers.

Comparison of outcomes of different biopsy schedules among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: An analysis of the G.A.P.3 global consortium database.

BACKGROUND: The optimal interval for repeat biopsy during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is yet to be defined. This study examined whether risk of upgrading (to grade group ≥ 2) or risk of converting to treatment varied according to intensity of repeat biopsy using data from the GAP3 consortium's global AS database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intensity of surveillance biopsy schedules was categorized according to centers' protocols: (a) Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance project (PRIAS) protocols with biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7 (10 centers; 7532 men); (b) biennial biopsies, that is, every other year (8 centers; 4365 men); and (c) annual biopsy schedules (4 centers; 1602 men). Multivariable Cox regression was used to compare outcomes according to biopsy intensity. RESULTS: Out of the 13,508 eligible participants, 56% were managed according to PRIAS protocols (biopsies at years 1, 4, and 7), 32% via biennial biopsy, and 12% via annual biopsy. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, risk of converting to treatment was greater for those on annual compared with PRIAS biopsy schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51-1.83; p < 0.001), while risk of upgrading did not differ (HR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.84-1.10). CONCLUSION: Results suggest more frequent biopsy schedules may deter some men from continuing AS despite no evidence of grade progression.

Cribriform architecture outperforms Gleason pattern 4 percentage and tertiary Gleason pattern 5 in predicting the outcome of Grade Group 2 prostate cancer patients.

AIMS: Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) percentage, invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma (IC/IDC) and the presence of tertiary Gleason pattern 5 (TP5) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens all aid in the risk stratification of Grade Group (GG) 2 prostate cancer patients. However, it is unclear to what extent these pathological features are mutually related and what are their individual values if they are investigated simultaneously. The aims of this study were: (i) to determine the mutual relationships of the GP4 percentage, IC/IDC and TP5 in GG2 RP specimens; and (ii) to assess their prognostic value for biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 1064 RP specimens, 472 (44.4%) showed GG2 prostate cancer. Patients with ≥25% GP4 more frequently had IC/IDC (67.0% versus 43.9%; P < 0.001) and TP5 (20.6% versus 5.8%; P < 0.001) than those with <25% GP4. In unadjusted analysis, an increased GP4 percentage [hazard ratio (HR) 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-1.6; P = 0.04] and IC/IDC (log rank P < 0.001) were associated with shorter BCRFS, whereas TP5 (P = 0.12) and a dichotomised (<25%, ≥25%) GP4 percentage (P = 0.10) were not. In multivariable analysis, IC/IDC was an independent prognostic factor (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.2-2.9; P = 0.005) for BCRFS, whereas a continuous or dichotomised GP4 percentage and TP5 were not independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, a higher GP4 percentage in RP specimens was associated with more frequent IC/IDC and TP5. IC/IDC was an independent predictor for BCRFS, whereas the GP4 percentage and TP5 were not. These findings underscore the importance of routinely including the presence of IC/IDC in RP pathology reports.

Decision aid and cost compensation influence uptake of PSA-based early detection without affecting decisional conflict: a cluster randomised trial.

International guidelines recommend to inform men about the benefits and harms of prostate specific antigen (PSA) based early detection of prostate cancer. This study investigates the influence of a transactional decision aid (DA) or cost compensation (CC) for a PSA test on the decisional behaviour of men. Prospective, cluster-randomised trial to compare two interventions in a 2 × 2 factorial design: DA versus counselling as usual, and CC versus noCC for PSA-testing. 90 cluster-randomised physicians in the administrative district of Muenster, Germany recruited 962 participants aged 55-69 yrs. in 2018. Primary endpoint: the influence of the DA and CC on the decisional conflict. Secondary endpoints: factors which altered the involvement of the men regarding their decision to take a PSA-test. The primary endpoint was analysed by a multivariate regression model. The choice to take the PSA test was increased by CC and reduced by the DA, the latter also reduced PSA uptake in men who were offered CC. The DA led to an increase of the median knowledge about early detection, changed willingness to perform a PSA test without increasing the level of shared decision, giving participants a stronger feeling of having made the decision by themselves. The DA did not alter the decisional conflict, as it was very low in all study groups. DA reduced and CC increased the PSA uptake. The DA seemed to have a greater impact on the participants than CC, as it led to fewer PSA tests even if CC was granted.Trial registration: German Clinical Trial Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien DRKS00007687). Registered: 06/05/2015. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00007687 .

Impact of Advanced Radiotherapy on Second Primary Cancer Risk in Prostate Cancer Survivors: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) techniques dramatically changed over the years. This may have affected the risk of radiation-induced second primary cancers (SPC), due to increased irradiated low dose volumes and scatter radiation. We investigated whether patterns of SPC after EBRT have changed over the years in prostate cancer (PCa) survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PCa survivors diagnosed between 1990-2014 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients treated with EBRT were divided in three time periods, representing 2-dimensional Radiotherapy (RT), 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), and the advanced RT (AdvRT) era. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and absolute excess risks (AER) were calculated to estimate relative and excess absolute SPC risks. Sub-hazard ratios (sHRs) were calculated to compare SPC rates between the EBRT and prostatectomy cohort. SPCs were categorized by subsite and anatomic region. RESULTS: PCa survivors who received EBRT had an increased risk of developing a solid SPC (SIR=1.08; 1.05-1.11), especially in patients aged <70 years (SIR=1.13; 1.09-1.16). Pelvic SPC risks were increased (SIR=1.28; 1.23-1.34), with no obvious differences between the three EBRT eras. Non-pelvic SPC were only significantly increased in the AdvRT era (SIR=1.08; 1.02-1.14), in particular for the 1-5 year follow-up period. Comparing the EBRT cohort to the prostatectomy cohort, again an increased pelvic SPC risk was found for all EBRT periods (sHRs= 1.61, 1.47-1.76). Increased non-pelvic SPC risks were present for all RT eras and highest for the AdvRT period (sHRs=1.17, 1.06-1.29). CONCLUSION: SPC risk in patients with EBRT is increased and remained throughout the different EBRT eras. The risk of developing a SPC outside the pelvic area changed unfavorably in the AdvRT era. Prolonged follow-up is needed to confirm this observation. Whether this is associated with increased irradiated low-dose volumes and scatter, or other changes in clinical EBRT practice, is the subject of further research.

Fusion transcripts and their genomic breakpoints in polyadenylated and ribosomal RNA-minus RNA sequencing data.

BACKGROUND: Fusion genes are typically identified by RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) without elucidating the causal genomic breakpoints. However, non-poly(A)-enriched RNA-seq contains large proportions of intronic reads that also span genomic breakpoints. RESULTS: We have developed an algorithm, Dr. Disco, that searches for fusion transcripts by taking an entire reference genome into account as search space. This includes exons but also introns, intergenic regions, and sequences that do not meet splice junction motifs. Using 1,275 RNA-seq samples, we investigated to what extent genomic breakpoints can be extracted from RNA-seq data and their implications regarding poly(A)-enriched and ribosomal RNA-minus RNA-seq data. Comparison with whole-genome sequencing data revealed that most genomic breakpoints are not, or minimally, transcribed while, in contrast, the genomic breakpoints of all 32 TMPRSS2-ERG-positive tumours were present at RNA level. We also revealed tumours in which the ERG breakpoint was located before ERG, which co-existed with additional deletions and messenger RNA that incorporated intergenic cryptic exons. In breast cancer we identified rearrangement hot spots near CCND1 and in glioma near CDK4 and MDM2 and could directly associate this with increased expression. Furthermore, in all datasets we find fusions to intergenic regions, often spanning multiple cryptic exons that potentially encode neo-antigens. Thus, fusion transcripts other than classical gene-to-gene fusions are prominently present and can be identified using RNA-seq. CONCLUSION: By using the full potential of non-poly(A)-enriched RNA-seq data, sophisticated analysis can reliably identify expressed genomic breakpoints and their transcriptional effects.

Comedonecrosis Gleason pattern 5 is associated with worse clinical outcome in operated prostate cancer patients.

Individual growth patterns and cribriform architecture are increasingly considered in risk stratification and clinical decision-making in men with prostate cancer. Our objective was to establish the prognostic value of individual Gleason 5 patterns in a radical prostatectomy (RP) cohort. We reviewed 1064 RPs and recorded Grade Group (GG), pT-stage, surgical margin status, Gleason 4 and 5 growth patterns as well as intraductal carcinoma. The clinical endpoints were biochemical recurrence and post-operative distant metastasis. Gleason pattern 5 was present in 339 (31.9%) RPs, of which 47 (4.4%) presented as primary, 166 (15.6%) as secondary, and 126 (11.8%) as tertiary pattern. Single cells/cords were present in 321 (94.7%) tumors with Gleason pattern 5, solid fields in 90 (26.5%), and comedonecrosis in invasive carcinoma in 32 (9.4%) tumors. Solid fields demonstrated either a small nested morphology (n = 50, 14.7%) or medium to large solid fields (n = 61, 18.0%). Cribriform architecture was present in 568 (53.4%) RPs. Medium to large solid fields and comedonecrosis coincided with cribriform architecture in all specimens, and were not observed in cribriform-negative cases. In multivariable analysis adjusted for Prostate-Specific Antigen, pT-stage, GG, surgical margin status and lymph node metastases, cribriform architecture (Hazard Ratio (HR) 9.9; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.9-25.5, P < 0.001) and comedonecrosis (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.7, P = 0.01) were independent predictors for metastasis-free survival, while single cells/cords (HR 1.2; 95% CI 0.7-1.8, P = 0.55) and medium to large solid fields (HR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9-2.7, P = 0.09) were not. In conclusion, comedonecrosis in invasive carcinoma is an independent prognostic Gleason 5 pattern for metastasis-free survival after RP. These data support the current recommendations to routinely include cribriform pattern in pathology reports and indicate that comedonecrosis should also be commented on.

A Multi-Center, Multi-Vendor Study to Evaluate the Generalizability of a Radiomics Model for Classifying Prostate cancer: High Grade vs. Low Grade.

Radiomics applied in MRI has shown promising results in classifying prostate cancer lesions. However, many papers describe single-center studies without external validation. The issues of using radiomics models on unseen data have not yet been sufficiently addressed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the generalizability of radiomics models for prostate cancer classification and to compare the performance of these models to the performance of radiologists. Multiparametric MRI, photographs and histology of radical prostatectomy specimens, and pathology reports of 107 patients were obtained from three healthcare centers in the Netherlands. By spatially correlating the MRI with histology, 204 lesions were identified. For each lesion, radiomics features were extracted from the MRI data. Radiomics models for discriminating high-grade (Gleason score ≥ 7) versus low-grade lesions were automatically generated using open-source machine learning software. The performance was tested both in a single-center setting through cross-validation and in a multi-center setting using the two unseen datasets as external validation. For comparison with clinical practice, a multi-center classifier was tested and compared with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PIRADS v2) scoring performed by two expert radiologists. The three single-center models obtained a mean AUC of 0.75, which decreased to 0.54 when the model was applied to the external data, the radiologists obtained a mean AUC of 0.46. In the multi-center setting, the radiomics model obtained a mean AUC of 0.75 while the radiologists obtained a mean AUC of 0.47 on the same subset. While radiomics models have a decent performance when tested on data from the same center(s), they may show a significant drop in performance when applied to external data. On a multi-center dataset our radiomics model outperformed the radiologists, and thus, may represent a more accurate alternative for malignancy prediction.

Risk-Based Selection for Active Surveillance: Results of the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Initiative.

PURPOSE: We sought to identify and validate known predictors of disease reclassification at 1 or 4 years to support risk-based selection of patients suitable for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An individual participant data meta-analysis using data from 25 established cohorts within the Movember Foundations GAP3 Consortium. In total 5,530 men were included. Disease reclassification was defined as any increase in Gleason grade group at biopsy at 1 and 4 years. Associations were estimated using random effect logistic regression models. The discriminative ability of combinations of predictors was assessed in an internal-external validation procedure using the AUC curve. RESULTS: Among the 5,570 men evaluated at 1 year, we found 815 reclassifications to higher Gleason grade group at biopsy (pooled reclassification rate 13%, range 0% to 31%). Important predictors were age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, T-stage and number of biopsy cores with prostate cancer. Among the 1,515 men evaluated at 4 years, we found 205 reclassifications (pooled reclassification rates 14%, range 3% to 40%), with similar predictors. The average areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve at internal-external validation were 0.68 and 0.61 for 1-year and 4-year reclassification, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Disease reclassification occurs typically in 13% to 14% of biopsies at 1 and 4 years after the start of active surveillance with substantial between-study heterogeneity. Current guidelines might be extended by considering prostate volume to improve individualized selection for active surveillance. Additional predictors are needed to improve patient selection for active surveillance.

Classification of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Multi-Parametric MRI: A Validation Study Comparing Deep Learning and Radiomics.

The computer-aided analysis of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) could improve significant-prostate-cancer (PCa) detection. Various deep-learning- and radiomics-based methods for significant-PCa segmentation or classification have been reported in the literature. To be able to assess the generalizability of the performance of these methods, using various external data sets is crucial. While both deep-learning and radiomics approaches have been compared based on the same data set of one center, the comparison of the performances of both approaches on various data sets from different centers and different scanners is lacking. The goal of this study was to compare the performance of a deep-learning model with the performance of a radiomics model for the significant-PCa diagnosis of the cohorts of various patients. We included the data from two consecutive patient cohorts from our own center (n = 371 patients), and two external sets of which one was a publicly available patient cohort (n = 195 patients) and the other contained data from patients from two hospitals (n = 79 patients). Using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), the radiologist tumor delineations and pathology reports were collected for all patients. During training, one of our patient cohorts (n = 271 patients) was used for both the deep-learning- and radiomics-model development, and the three remaining cohorts (n = 374 patients) were kept as unseen test sets. The performances of the models were assessed in terms of their area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC). Whereas the internal cross-validation showed a higher AUC for the deep-learning approach, the radiomics model obtained AUCs of 0.88, 0.91 and 0.65 on the independent test sets compared to AUCs of 0.70, 0.73 and 0.44 for the deep-learning model. Our radiomics model that was based on delineated regions resulted in a more accurate tool for significant-PCa classification in the three unseen test sets when compared to a fully automated deep-learning model.

Cribriform architecture in radical prostatectomies predicts oncological outcome in Gleason score 8 prostate cancer patients.

The Gleason score is an important parameter for clinical outcome in prostate cancer patients. Gleason score 8 is a heterogeneous disease including Gleason score 3 + 5, 4 + 4, and 5 + 3 tumors, and encompasses a broad range of tumor growth patterns. Our objective was to characterize individual growth patterns and identify prognostic parameters in Gleason score 8 prostate cancer patients. We reviewed 1064 radical prostatectomy specimens, recorded individual Gleason 4 and 5 growth patterns as well as presence of intraductal carcinoma, and evaluated biochemical recurrence- and metastasis-free survival. Gleason score 8 disease was identified in 140 (13%) patients, of whom 76 (54%) had Gleason score 3 + 5, 46 (33%) 4 + 4, and 18 (13%) 5 + 3 disease. Invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma (n = 87, 62%) was observed more frequently in Gleason score 4 + 4 (93%) than 3 + 5 (47%; P < 0.001) and 5 + 3 (44%; P < 0.001) patients. Gleason pattern 5 was present in 110 (79%) men: as single cells and/or cords in 99 (90%) and solid fields in 32 (29%) cases. Solid field pattern 5 coexisted with cribriform architecture (23/32, 72%) more frequently than nonsolid pattern 5 cases (36/78, 46%, P = 0.02). In multivariable analysis including age, prostate-specific antigen, pT-stage, surgical margin status, and lymph node metastases, presence of cribriform architecture was an independent parameter for biochemical recurrence-free (hazard ratio (HR) 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-3.7; P = 0.04) and metastasis-free (HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.0-12.3; P = 0.05) survival. In conclusion, invasive cribriform and/or intraductal carcinoma occurs more frequently in Gleason score 4 + 4 prostate cancer patients than in Gleason score 3 + 5 and 5 + 3, and is an independent parameter for biochemical recurrence and metastasis. Therefore, cribriform architecture has added value in risk stratification of Gleason score 8 prostate cancer patients.