Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Men Exposed to α1-Adrenoceptor Antagonists.

BACKGROUND: α1-antagonists are commonly used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia. Preclinical studies suggest they induce cell death and inhibit tumor growth. This study evaluates the risk of prostate cancer death in men using α1-antagonists. METHODS: A population-based cohort study in Stockholm, Sweden (January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2019) including 451,779 men with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. Study entry was one year after the first PSA test. Men were considered exposed at their second filled prescription. Primary outcome: prostate cancer mortality. Secondary outcomes: all-cause mortality and prostate cancer incidence. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for all outcomes. Inverse probability weighting with marginal structural models accounted for time-dependent confounders. RESULTS: Of 351,297 men in the cohort, 39,856 (11.3%) were exposed to α1-antagonists. Median follow-up for prostate cancer mortality was 8.9 years and median exposure time to α1-antagonists was 4.4 years. There was no evidence of an association between α1-antagonist use and prostate cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, or high-grade prostate cancer. α1-antagonist-use was associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (HR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.06-1.17) and low-grade prostate cancer (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.11-1.33). Men treated with α1-antagonists had more frequent PSA testing. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show no significant association between α1-adrenoceptor antagonist exposure and prostate cancer mortality or high-grade prostate cancer. Although the preclinical evidence indicates a potential chemopreventive effect, this study's findings do not support it.

Long-Term Oncological Outcomes after Nerve-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Center, Two-Arm Prospective Study.

AIMS: To compare the oncological outcomes of patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer undergoing nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS: Between November 2002 and December 2018, we prospectively recorded the data of patients undergoing RARP for high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) at our tertiary referral center. NSS (nerve-sparing surgery) was carefully offered on the basis of the preoperative clinical characteristics of the patients and an intraoperative assessment. The patients were stratified into two groups: nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing groups (yes/no). Radical prostatectomies were performed by 10 surgeons with a robot-assisted technique using a daVinci® surgical system. The primary oncological outcome evaluated was biochemical recurrence (BCR). The secondary oncological outcomes assessed were positive surgical margins (PSMs) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). RESULTS: A total of 779 patients were included in the study: 429 (55.1%) underwent NSS while 350 (44.9%) underwent non-NSS. After a mean (±SD) follow-up of 192 (±14) months, 328 (42.1%) patients developed BCR; no significant difference was found between the NSS and non-NSS groups (156 vs. 172; p = 0.09). Both our univariable and multivariable analyses found that the nerve-sparing approach was not a predictor of BCR (p > 0.05). Kaplan-Mayer survival curves for BCR showed no significant difference among the non-NSS, unilateral NSS, and bilateral NSS groups (log rank test = 0.6). PSMs were reported after RARPs for 254 (32.6%) patients, with no significant difference between the NSS and non-NSS group (143 vs. 111; p = 0.5). In the subgroup of 15 patients who died during the follow-up period, mean (±SD) CSS was 70.5 (±26.1) months, with no significant difference between the NSS and non-NSS groups (mean CSS: 70.3 vs. 70.7 months). CONCLUSIONS: NSS does not appear to negatively impact the oncological outcomes of patients with high-risk PCa. Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm our promising findings.

[Treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer]. / Behandling av icke spridd prostatacancer ­ individuellt val.

There is a long history of curative treatment of prostate cancer. However, as prostate cancer often grows very slowly, and symptoms do not have time to develop during a person's lifetime, a more tentative approach has become more and more common in many cases. This may be through either watchful waiting or active surveillance. In the first case palliative hormonal treatment is given in the case of progression, in the latter curative treatment would be the choice. When treatment is deemed necessary for localized disease, surgery and radiotherapy are considered equivalent in terms of efficacy and overall risk of side effects. For locally advanced disease, radiotherapy is the recommended first-hand choice outside the SPCG 15 study. Focal treatment, which may lead to less side effects than surgery or radiotherapy, is not recommended outside trial settings due to lack of long-term follow-up data.

Biomarker vs MRI-Enhanced Strategies for Prostate Cancer Screening: The STHLM3-MRI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Prostate cancer guidelines often recommend obtaining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before a biopsy, yet MRI access is limited. To date, no randomized clinical trial has compared the use of novel biomarkers for risk estimation vs MRI-based diagnostic approaches for prostate cancer screening. Objective: To evaluate biomarker-based risk estimation (Stockholm3 risk scores or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels) with systematic biopsies vs an MRI-enhanced strategy (PSA levels and MRI with systematic and targeted biopsy) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in a screening setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label randomized clinical trial conducted in Stockholm, Sweden, between April 4, 2018, and December 10, 2020, recruited men aged 50 to 74 years with no history of prostate cancer. Participants underwent blood sampling for PSA and Stockholm3 tests to estimate their risk of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). After the blood tests were performed, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:3 ratio to receive a Stockholm3 test with systematic biopsy (biomarker group) or a PSA test followed by MRI with systematic and targeted biopsy (MRI-enhanced group). Data were analyzed from September 1 to November 5, 2023. Interventions: In the biomarker group, men with a Stockholm3 risk score of 0.15 or higher underwent systematic biopsies. In the MRI-enhanced group, men with a PSA level of 3 ng/mL or higher had an MRI and those with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3 or higher (range: 1-5, with higher scores indicating a higher likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer) underwent targeted and systematic biopsies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). Secondary outcomes included detection of clinically insignificant cancer (Gleason score ≤6) and the number of biopsy procedures performed. Results: Of 12 743 male participants (median [IQR] age, 61 [55-67] years), 5134 were assigned to the biomarker group and 7609 to the MRI-enhanced group. In the biomarker group, 8.0% of men (413) had Stockholm3 risk scores of 0.15 or higher and were referred for systematic biopsies. In the MRI-enhanced group, 12.2% of men (929) had a PSA level of 3 ng/mL or higher and were referred for MRI with biopsies if they had a PI-RADS score of 3 or higher. Detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer were comparable between the 2 groups: 2.3% in the biomarker group and 2.5% in the MRI-enhanced group (relative proportion, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.15). More biopsies were performed in the biomarker group than in the MRI-enhanced group (326 of 5134 [6.3%] vs 338 of 7609 [4.4%]; relative proportion, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.23-1.66]), and more indolent prostate cancers were detected (61 [1.2%] vs 41 [0.5%]; relative proportion, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.49-3.27]). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that combining a Stockholm3 test with systematic biopsies is comparable with MRI-based screening with PSA levels and systematic and targeted biopsies for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, but this approach resulted in more biopsies as well as detection of a greater number of indolent cancers. In regions where access to MRI is lacking, the Stockholm3 test can aid in selecting patients for systematic prostate biopsy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03377881.

Prediagnostic Prostate-specific Antigen Testing and Clinical Characteristics in Men with Lethal Prostate Cancer.

Background and objective: Prostate cancer (PC) is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related mortality in men worldwide. Opportunistic testing with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has limited impact on PC mortality. Our objective was to assess prediagnostic PSA testing patterns and clinical characteristics at diagnosis in men with lethal PC. Methods: We conducted a population-based observational study of all men dying from PC in Stockholm County, Sweden, from 2015 to 2019. Data were retrieved from the National Prostate Cancer Register and the Stockholm PSA and Biopsy Register. If the first PSA was registered within 1 yr before diagnosis, men were categorised as PSA naïve. If an elevated PSA level was registered >1 yr before diagnosis without leading to prostate biopsy or repeating PSA within 1 yr, men were categorised as having delayed diagnosis. If a normal PSA level was registered within 5 yr before diagnosis, followed by an elevated PSA level that resulted in PC diagnosis within 1 yr, men were categorised as PSA tested. Clinical characteristics at diagnosis were stratified with D'Amico risk group classification. Key findings and limitations: Among 1473 men dying from PC, PSA test history was available for 995. Of these men, 60% (n = 592) were PSA naïve, 25% (n = 250) received delayed diagnosis, and 15% (n = 153) were PSA tested. After examining all 1473 men, 25% (n = 350) were diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk cancer, 48% (n = 687) with high-risk cancer, and 27% (n = 385) with metastatic disease. Limitations include the retrospective design. Conclusions and clinical implications: Many men with lethal PC lacked PSA testing before diagnosis or had been tested without subsequent follow-up. Nearly half of the study population was diagnosed with high-risk cancer and almost one-third with metastatic disease. These findings suggest further evaluation of the current opportunistic PSA testing approach. Patient summary: Data from a population-based observational study of men dying from prostate cancer showed that many of them did not undergo either prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing before diagnosis or subsequent follow-up if tested. These findings implicate deficiencies in the current opportunistic PSA testing approach.

Population-based Organised Prostate Cancer Testing: Results from the First Invitation of 50-year-old Men.

BACKGROUND: The European Union recently recommended evaluation of the feasibility of organised prostate cancer screening. In Sweden, regional population-based organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) programmes were introduced in 2020. OBJECTIVE: To describe initial participation rates and diagnostic outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The three most populated Swedish regions invited all men aged 50 yr to OPT by a letter in 2020-2022. Men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥3 ng/ml were referred for prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). PSA assays differed across regions. Men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-3 and PSA density ≥0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or PI-RADS 4-5 were referred for a biopsy. Data were obtained from the Swedish Register for Organised Prostate Cancer Testing. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall and regional participation rates, PSA distributions, PI-RADS score distributions, cancer detection, and treatment were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 23 855 (35%) of 68 060 invited men participated; 696 (2.9%) had PSA ≥3 ng/ml, and of them, 306 (44%) had a biopsy indication and 221 (32%) had a biopsy. On biopsy, 93 (42%) had Gleason grade group ≥2 (0.39% of PSA-tested men) and 44 (20%) Gleason grade group 1 cancer. Most men with cancer had treatment with curative intent (70%) or were under active surveillance (28%). Across regions, proportions of men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml ranged from 2.3% to 4.0%, and those with PI-RADS score 4-5 ranged from 12% to 21%. A limitation is that results are applicable only to first testing of men in their early 50s. CONCLUSIONS: The OPT programmes are feasible with good compliance to the diagnostic pathway. The use of MRI and PSA density avoided a biopsy for over half of the men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml. Inter-regional differences in diagnostic outcomes show a need for standardisation of the diagnostic pathway's components. PATIENT SUMMARY: We report the diagnostic outcomes of inviting 68 000 50-yr-old men to organised prostate cancer testing.

Diagnosis of prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging in men treated with 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate if exposure to 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) modifies the effect of MRI for the diagnosis of clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) (ISUP Gleason grade ≥ 2). METHODS: This study is a multicenter cohort study including patients undergoing prostate biopsy and MRI at 24 institutions between 2013 and 2022. Multivariable analysis predicting csPCa with an interaction term between 5-ARIs and PIRADS score was performed. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values of MRI were compared in treated and untreated patients. RESULTS: 705 patients (9%) were treated with 5-ARIs [median age 69 years, Interquartile range (IQR): 65, 73; median PSA 6.3 ng/ml, IQR 4.0, 9.0; median prostate volume 53 ml, IQR 40, 72] and 6913 were 5-ARIs naïve (age 66 years, IQR 60, 71; PSA 6.5 ng/ml, IQR 4.8, 9.0; prostate volume 50 ml, IQR 37, 65). MRI showed PIRADS 1-2, 3, 4, and 5 lesions in 141 (20%), 158 (22%), 258 (37%), and 148 (21%) patients treated with 5-ARIs, and 878 (13%), 1764 (25%), 2948 (43%), and 1323 (19%) of untreated patients (p < 0.0001). No difference was found in csPCa detection rates, but diagnosis of high-grade PCa (ISUP GG ≥ 3) was higher in treated patients (23% vs 19%, p = 0.013). We did not find any evidence of interaction between PIRADS score and 5-ARIs exposure in predicting csPCa. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of PIRADS ≥ 3 were 94%, 29%, 46%, and 88% in treated patients and 96%, 18%, 43%, and 88% in untreated patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to 5-ARIs does not affect the association of PIRADS score with csPCa. Higher rates of high-grade PCa were detected in treated patients, but most were clearly visible on MRI as PIRADS 4 and 5 lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT05078359.

Biochemical Recurrence and Risk of Mortality Following Radiotherapy or Radical Prostatectomy.

Importance: Stratifying patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for prostate cancer based on the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) is essential for determining the need for further testing and treatments. Objective: To evaluate the association of BCR after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy and its current risk stratification with PCSM. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included a total of 16 311 male patients with 10 364 (64%) undergoing radical prostatectomy and 5947 (36%) undergoing radiotherapy with curative intent (cT1-3, cM0) and PSA follow-up in Stockholm, Sweden, between 2003 and 2019. Follow-up for all patients was until death, emigration, or end of the study (ie, December 31, 2018). Data were analyzed between September 2022 and March 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes of the study were the cumulative incidence of BCR and PCSM. Patients with BCR were stratified in low- and high-risk according to European Association of Urology (EAU) criteria. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Results: A total of 16 311 patients were included. Median (IQR) age was 64 (59-68) years in the radical prostatectomy cohort (10 364 patients) and 69 (64-73) years in the radiotherapy cohort (5947 patients). Median (IQR) follow-up for survivors was 88 (55-138) months and 89 (53-134) months, respectively. Following radical prostatectomy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 16% (95% CI, 15%-18%) for the 4024 patients in the low D'Amico risk group, 30% (95% CI, 27%-32%) for the 5239 patients in the intermediate D'Amico risk group, and 46% (95% CI, 42%-51%) for 1101 patients in the high D'Amico risk group. Following radiotherapy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 18% (95% CI, 15%-21%) for the 1230 patients in the low-risk group, 24% (95% CI, 21%-26%) for the 2355 patients in the intermediate-risk group, and 36% (95% CI, 33%-39%) for the 2362 patients in the high-risk group. The 10-year cumulative incidences of PCSM after radical prostatectomy were 4% (95% CI, 2%-6%) for the 1101 patients who developed low-risk EAU-BCR and 9% (95% CI, 5%-13%) for 649 patients who developed high-risk EAU-BCR. After radiotherapy, the 10-year PCSM cumulative incidences were 24% (95% CI, 19%-29%) for the 591 patients in the low-risk EAU-BCR category and 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%) for the 600 patients in the high-risk EAU-BCR category. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest the validity of EAU-BCR stratification system. However, while the risk of dying from prostate cancer in low-risk EAU-BCR after radical prostatectomy was very low, patients who developed low-risk EAU-BCR after radiotherapy had a nonnegligible risk of prostate cancer mortality. Improving risk stratification of patients with BCR is pivotal to guide salvage treatment decisions, reduce overtreatment, and limit the number of staging tests in the event of PSA elevations after primary treatment.

Salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: functional outcomes in the LAPPRO trial after 8-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among patients with localized prostate cancer, however up to 35% of patients will experience biochemical recurrence, often treated with salvage radiotherapy. The objective of the study was to investigate long-term effects of salvage radiotherapy. METHODS: A prospective, controlled, non-randomized trial at 14 Swedish center's including 4,003 patients scheduled for radical prostatectomy 2008-2011. A target trial emulation approach was used to identify eligible patients that was treated with salvage radiotherapy. The control group received no salvage radiotherapy. Outcomes were assessed by patient questionnaires on ordinal scales and statistical group comparisons were made using ordered logit regression with adjustment for baseline outcome and confounding factors. The primary endpoints were bowel, urinary and sexual function and bothering due to dysfunction at 8 years. RESULTS: Eleven percent (330/3,139) of the analyzed study population received salvage radiotherapy. Fecal leakage, leakage of mucus and hematochezia were more common after receiving salvage radiotherapy compared with the control group; 4.5% versus 2.6% odds ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]): (1.90 [1.38; 2.62]), 6.8% versus 1.5% 4.14 (2.98; 5.76) and 8.6% versus 1.2% 4.14 (2.98; 5.76), respectively. Urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction and hematuria were more common after receiving salvage radiotherapy, 34% versus 23% 2.23 (2.65; 3.00), 65% versus 57% 1.65 (1.18; 2.29) and 16% versus 1.6% 11.17 (5.68; 21.99), respectively. CONCLUSION: Salvage radiotherapy was associated with increased risk for fecal leakage, hematochezia, urinary incontinence and hematuria. Our results emphasize the importance of selecting patients for salvage radiotherapy to avoid overtreatment and to give high quality pre-treatment information to ensure patients' preparedness for late side-effects.

Prostate Cancer IRE Study (PRIS): A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Focal Therapy to Radical Treatment in Localized Prostate Cancer.

The aim of focal treatments (FTs) in prostate cancer (PCa) is to treat lesions while preserving surrounding benign tissue and anatomic structures. Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a nonthermal technique that uses high-voltage electric pulses to increase membrane permeability and induce membrane disruption in cells, which potentially causes less damage to the surrounding tissue in comparison to other ablative techniques. We summarize the study protocol for the Prostate Cancer IRE Study (PRIS), which involves two parallel randomized controlled trials comparing IRE with (1) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or (2) radiotherapy in men with newly diagnosed intermediate-risk PCa (NCT05513443). To reduce the number of patients for inclusion and the study duration, the primary outcomes are functional outcomes: urinary incontinence in study 1 and irritative urinary symptoms in study 2. Providing evidence of the lower impact of IRE on functional outcomes will lay a foundation for the design of future multicenter studies with an oncological outcome as the primary endpoint. Erectile function, quality of life, treatment failure, adverse events, and cost effectiveness will be evaluated as secondary objectives. Patients diagnosed with Gleason score 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 PCa from a single lesion visible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without any Gleason grade 4 or higher in systematic biopsies outside of the target (unifocal significant disease), aged ≥40 yr, with no established extraprostatic extension on multiparametric MRI, a lesion volume of <1.5 cm3, prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/ml, and stage ≤T2b are eligible for inclusion. The study plan is to recruit 184 men.

When to order genomic tests: development and external validation of a model to predict high-risk prostate cancer at the genotypic level.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop a model to predict high-genomic-risk prostate cancer (PCa) according to Decipher score, a validated 22 gene prognostic panel. By doing so, one might select the individuals who are likely to benefit from genomic testing and improve pre-op counseling about the need for adjuvant treatments. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed IRB-approved databases at two institutions. All patients had preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Decipher prostate radical prostatectomy (RP), a validated 22 gene prognostic panel. We used binary logistic regression to estimate high-risk Decipher (Decipher score > 0.60) probability on RP specimen. Area under the curve (AUC) and calibration were used to assess the accuracy of the model in the development and validation cohort. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to assess the clinical benefit of the model. RESULTS: The development and validation cohort included 622 and 185 patients with 283 (35%) and 80 (43%) of those with high-risk Decipher. The multivariable model included PSA density, biopsy Gleason Grade Group, percentage of positive cores and MRI extracapsular extension. AUC was 0.73 after leave-one-out cross-validation. DCA showed a clinical benefit in a range of probabilities between 15 and 60%. In the external validation cohort, AUC was 0.70 and calibration showed that the model underestimates the actual probability of the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed model to predict high-risk Decipher score at RP is helpful to improve risk stratification of patients with PCa and to assess the need for additional testing and treatments.

Enzalutamide and Quality of Life in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

Enzalutamide and Quality of Life in Prostate CancerFreedland et al. present the health-related quality of life outcomes for patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to enzalutamide plus leuprolide, enzalutamide monotherapy, or leuprolide alone (EMBARK trial). The key objectives were to determine differences in time to first and confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in pain and time to first and confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration in functional status. There were no differences among the key outcomes among all three groups.

Digital Rectal Examination in Stockholm3 Biomarker-based Prostate Cancer Screening.

Background: Pathological digital rectal examination (DRE) is suggestive of prostate cancer but has low sensitivity and specificity. DRE is incorporated in many clinical risk calculators, but there is less evidence on how DRE performs in the setting of blood biomarkers and polygenic risk prediction models other than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) associated with prostate cancer. The Stockholm3 test combines a blood test and clinical variables including DRE. Objective: To assess the predictive performance of DRE for finding clinically significant prostate cancer in systematic biopsy and evaluate its added value to the multivariable diagnostic test Stockholm3. Design setting and participants: This population-based study in the screening by invitation setting included 5543 men aged 50-69 yr with PSA ≥3 ng/ml who were referred for systematic prostate biopsy between 2012 and 2015. The STHLM3 study is registered with ISRCTN.com as ISRCTN84445406. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Predictive performance was assessed via estimates of sensitivity and specificity and in logistic regression. Clinically significant cancer was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2 (GG ≥2) cancer on systematic biopsy. Results and limitations: We found that 11% of men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml had a suspicious DRE. A suspicious DRE was associated with a 3.16-fold higher risk (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.83-3.52) of GG ≥2 cancer and greater length of cancer on biopsy. The risk of nonsignificant cancer was similar regardless of the DRE finding. The risk of GG ≥2 cancer was 46.2% (95% CI 42.2-50.3%) for men with a suspicious DRE versus 14.6% (95% CI 13.7-15.7%) for men with a negative DRE. The elevated risk of GG ≥2 cancer persisted after adjusting for the other Stockholm3 test parameters (odds ratio 2.88, 95% CI 2.32-3.57). For detection of GG ≥2 cancer among men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml, DRE had sensitivity of 27.8% (95% CI 25.1-30.7%) and specificity of 92.8% (95% CI 92.1-93.6%). Conclusions: In this screening-by-invitation setting we found that for men with PSA ≥3 ng/ml, a suspicious DRE indicates more than threefold higher risk of harboring significant prostate cancer. DRE as a variable adds significant precision to the Stockholm3 prediction model. Men with a suspicious DRE should be referred for further diagnostic workup, including biopsy. Patient summary: We investigated the ability of digital rectal examination to predict if a patient has clinically significant prostate cancer. We found that digital rectal examination provides valuable information and can help doctors in making an informed decision on whether to recommend prostate biopsy.

Predicting the Need for Biopsy to Detect Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-detected Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 Lesion: Development and Multinational External Validation of the Imperial Rapid Access to Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: Although multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has high sensitivity, its lower specificity leads to a high prevalence of false-positive lesions requiring biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To develop and externally validate a scoring system for MRI-detected Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS)/Likert ≥3 lesions containing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The multicentre Rapid Access to Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) pathway included 1189 patients referred to urology due to elevated age-specific prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE); April 27, 2017 to October 25, 2019. INTERVENTION: Visual-registration or image-fusion targeted and systematic transperineal biopsies for an MRI score of ≥4 or 3 + PSA density ≥0.12 ng/ml/ml. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Fourteen variables were used in multivariable logistic regression for Gleason ≥3 + 4 (primary) and Gleason ≥4 + 3, and PROMIS definition 1 (any ≥4 + 3 or ≥6 mm any grade; secondary). Nomograms were created and a decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed. Models with varying complexity were externally validated in 2374 patients from six international cohorts. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The five-item Imperial RAPID risk score used age, PSA density, prior negative biopsy, prostate volume, and highest MRI score (corrected c-index for Gleason ≥3 + 4 of 0.82 and 0.80-0.86 externally). Incorporating family history, DRE, and Black ethnicity within the eight-item Imperial RAPID risk score provided similar outcomes. The DCA showed similar superiority of all models, with net benefit differences increasing in higher threshold probabilities. At 20%, 30%, and 40% of predicted Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer, the RAPID risk score was able to reduce, respectively, 11%, 21%, and 31% of biopsies against 1.8%, 6.2%, and 14% of missed csPCa (or 9.6%, 17%, and 26% of foregone biopsies, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The Imperial RAPID risk score provides a standardised tool for the prediction of csPCa in patients with an MRI-detected PIRADS/Likert ≥3 lesion and can support the decision for prostate biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this multinational study, we developed a scoring system incorporating clinical and magnetic resonance imaging characteristics to predict which patients have prostate cancer requiring treatment and which patients can safely forego an invasive prostate biopsy. This model was validated in several other countries.

Are We Ready to Implement Molecular Subtyping of Bladder Cancer in Clinical Practice? Part 1: General Issues and Marker Expression.

Bladder cancer (BC) is a heterogeneous disease with highly variable clinical and pathological features, and resulting in different outcomes. Such heterogeneity ensues from distinct pathogenetic mechanisms and may consistently affect treatment responses in single patients. Thus, over the last few years, several groups have developed molecular classification schemes for BC, mainly based on their mRNA expression profiles. A "consensus" classification has recently been proposed to combine the published systems, agreeing on a six-cluster scheme with distinct prognostic and predictive features. In order to implement molecular subtyping as a risk-stratification tool in routine practice, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been explored as a readily accessible, relatively inexpensive, standardized surrogate method, achieving promising results in different clinical settings. The first part of this review deals with the steps resulting in the development of a molecular subtyping of BC, its prognostic and predictive implications, and the main features of immunohistochemical markers used as surrogates to stratify BC into pre-defined molecular clusters.

Are We Ready to Implement Molecular Subtyping of Bladder Cancer in Clinical Practice? Part 2: Subtypes and Divergent Differentiation.

Following several attempts to achieve a molecular stratification of bladder cancer (BC) over the last decade, a "consensus" classification has been recently developed to provide a common base for the molecular classification of bladder cancer (BC), encompassing a six-cluster scheme with distinct prognostic and predictive characteristics. In order to implement molecular subtyping (MS) as a risk stratification tool in routine practice, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has been explored as a readily accessible, relatively inexpensive, standardized surrogate method, achieving promising results in different clinical settings. The second part of this review deals with the pathological and clinical features of the molecular clusters, both in conventional and divergent urothelial carcinoma, with a focus on the role of IHC-based subtyping.

The Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator for Predicting any Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Development of a Risk Predictive Tool and Validation with Advanced Neural Networking, Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcome Database, and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator.

Background: The European Association of Urology guidelines recommend the use of imaging, biomarkers, and risk calculators in men at risk of prostate cancer. Risk predictive calculators that combine multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with prebiopsy variables aid as an individualized decision-making tool for patients at risk of prostate cancer, and advanced neural networking increases reliability of these tools. Objective: To develop a comprehensive risk predictive online web-based tool using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data, to predict the risk of any prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) applicable to biopsy-naïve men, men with a prior negative biopsy, men with prior positive low-grade cancer, and men with negative MRI. Design setting and participants: Institutional review board-approved prospective data of 1902 men undergoing biopsy from October 2013 to September 2021 at Mount Sinai were collected. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate clinical variables such as age, race, digital rectal examination, family history, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy status, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score, and prostate volume, which emerged as predictors for any PCa and csPCa. Binary logistic regression was performed to study the probability. Validation was performed with advanced neural networking (ANN), multi-institutional European cohort (Prostate MRI Outcome Database [PROMOD]), and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ERSPC RC) 3/4. Results and limitations: Overall, 2363 biopsies had complete clinical information, with 57.98% any cancer and 31.40% csPCa. The prediction model was significantly associated with both any PCa and csPCa having an area under the curve (AUC) of 81.9% including clinical data. The AUC for external validation was calculated in PROMOD, ERSPC RC, and ANN for any PCa (0.82 vs 0.70 vs 0.90) and csPCa (0.82 vs 0.78 vs 0.92), respectively. This study is limited by its retrospective design and overestimation of csPCa in the PROMOD cohort. Conclusions: The Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator combines PSA, imaging and clinical data to predict the risk of any PCa and csPCa for all patient settings. With accurate validation results in a large European cohort, ERSPC RC, and ANN, it exhibits its efficiency and applicability in a more generalized population. This calculator is available online in the form of a free web-based tool that can aid clinicians in better patients counseling and treatment decision-making. Patient summary: We developed the Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator (MSP-RC) to assess the likelihood of any prostate cancer and clinically significant disease based on a combination of clinical and imaging characteristics. MSP-RC is applicable to all patient settings and accessible online.