Decipher identifies men with otherwise clinically favorable-intermediate risk disease who may not be good candidates for active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to validate Decipher to predict adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) favorable-intermediate risk (F-IR) prostate cancer (PCa), and to better select F-IR candidates for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: In all, 647 patients diagnosed with NCCN very low/low risk (VL/LR) or F-IR prostate cancer were identified from a multi-institutional PCa biopsy database; all underwent RP with complete postoperative clinicopathological information and Decipher genomic risk scores. The performance of all risk assessment tools was evaluated using logistic regression model for the endpoint of AP, defined as grade group 3-5, pT3b or higher, or lymph node invasion. RESULTS: The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 56-66) for 220 patients with NCCN F-IR disease, 53% classified as low-risk by Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA 0-2) and 47% as intermediate-risk (CAPRA 3-5). Decipher classified 79%, 13% and 8% of men as low-, intermediate- and high-risk with 13%, 10%, and 41% rate of AP, respectively. Decipher was an independent predictor of AP with an odds ratio of 1.34 per 0.1 unit increased (p value = 0.002) and remained significant when adjusting by CAPRA. Notably, F-IR with Decipher low or intermediate score did not associate with significantly higher odds of AP compared to VL/LR. CONCLUSIONS: NCCN risk groups, including F-IR, are highly heterogeneous and should be replaced with multivariable risk-stratification. In particular, incorporating Decipher may be useful for safely expanding the use of AS in this patient population.

Minimally invasive prostatic urethral lift (PUL) efficacious in TURP candidates: a multicenter German evaluation after 2 years.

INTRODUCTION: Successful outcomes have been reported for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) with the prostatic urethral lift (PUL) in a number of clinical investigations. Our aim was to investigate PUL outcomes in patients treated in a day-to-day clinical setting without the rigid exclusion criteria of clinical studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated the outcome of the PUL procedure at five German departments during the initial period when PUL was approved for the clinic (10/2012-06/2014). All candidates for transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) received PUL information and were given the choice of procedures. The only exclusion criterion was an obstructive median lobe. No patients were excluded because of high post-void residual volume (PVR), prostate size, retention history or LUTS oral therapy. Maximum urinary flow (Qmax), PVR, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of Life (QOL) were assessed at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. RESULTS: Of 212 TURP candidates, 86 choose PUL. A mean of 3.8 (2-7) UroLift implants were implanted in patients of 38-85 years with a prostate size of 17-111 ml over 57 (42-90) min under general or local anesthesia. Thirty-eight (38.4%) patients had severe BPH obstruction and would have been denied PUL utilizing previously reported study criteria. Within 1 month 74 (86%) reported substantial symptom relief with significant improvements in Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and QOL (p < 0.001) that was maintained within the follow-up. Sexual function including ejaculation was unchanged or improved. No Clavien-Dindo Grad ≥ 2 was reported postoperatively. Eleven (12.8%) patients were retreated over 2 years. Twelve (86%) of 14 patients presenting with chronic urinary retention were catheter free at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: PUL is a promising surgical technique that may alleviate LUTS, even in patients with severe obstruction.

"Finding the needle in a haystack": oncologic evaluation of patients treated for LUTS with holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

PURPOSE: To evaluate oncologic parameters of men with bothersome LUTS undergoing surgical treatment with HoLEP or TURP. METHODS: Five hundred and eighteen patients undergoing HoLEP (n = 289) or TURP (n = 229) were retrospectively analyzed for total PSA, prostate volume, PSA density, history of prostate biopsy, resected prostate weight, and histopathological features. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of incidental PCa (iPCa). RESULTS: Men undergoing HoLEP had a significantly higher total PSA (median 5.5 vs. 2.3 ng/mL) and prostate volume (median 80 vs. 41 cc), and displayed a greater reduction of prostate volume after surgery compared to TURP patients (median 71 vs. 50%; all p < 0.001). With a prevalence of incidental PCa (iPCa) of 15 and 17% for HoLEP and TURP, respectively, the choice of procedure had no influence on the detection of iPCa (p = 0.593). However, a higher rate of false-negative preoperative prostate biopsies was noted among iPCa patients in the HoLEP arm (40 vs. 8%, p = 0.007). In multivariate logistic regression, we identified patient age (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07, p = 0.013) and PSA density (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.09-4.18, p = 0.028) as independent predictors for the detection of iPCa. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in oncologic parameters, the choice of technique had no influence on the detection of iPCa. Increased patient age and higher PSA density were associated with iPCa. A higher rate of false-negative preoperative prostate biopsies was noted in HoLEP patients. Therefore, diagnostic assessment of LUTS patients requires a more adapted approach to exclude malignancy, especially in those with larger prostates.