Risk stratification for early biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imagining-targeted biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-targeted biopsy are nowadays recommended in the prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic pathway. Ploussard and Mazzone have integrated these tools into novel risk classification systems predicting the risk of early biochemical recurrence (eBCR) in PCa patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). We aimed to assess available risk classification systems and to define the best-performing. METHODS: Data on 1371 patients diagnosed by MRI-targeted biopsy and treated by RP between 2014 and 2022 at eight European tertiary referral centers were analyzed. Risk classifications systems included were the European Association of Urology (EAU) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups, the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate (STAR-CAP) classification, the Ploussard and Mazzone models, and ISUP grade group. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare eBCR among risk classification systems. Performance was assessed in terms of discrimination quantified using Harrell's c-index, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: Overall, 152 (11%) patients had eBCR at a median follow-up of 31 months (interquartile range: 19-45). The 3-year eBCR-free survival rate was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89-93). For each risk classification system, a significant difference among survival probabilities was observed (log-rank test p < 0.05) except for NCCN classification (p = 0.06). The highest discrimination was obtained with the STAR-CAP classification (c-index 66%) compared to CAPRA score (63% vs. 66%, p = 0.2), ISUP grade group (62% vs. 66, p = 0.07), Ploussard (61% vs. 66%, p = 0.003) and Mazzone models (59% vs. 66%, p = 0.02), and EAU (57% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) and NCCN (57% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) risk groups. Risk classification systems demonstrated good calibration characteristics. At DCA, the CAPRA score showed the highest net benefit at a probability threshold of 9%-15%. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of risk classification systems using MRI and MRI-targeted information was less optimistic when tested in a contemporary set of patients. CAPRA score and STAR-CAP classification were the best-performing and should be preferred for treatment decision-making.

Oncological and safety profiles in patients undergoing simultaneous transurethral resection (TUR) of bladder tumour and TUR of the prostate.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the oncological impact and adverse events of performing simultaneous transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURB) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), as evidence on the outcomes of simultaneous TURB for bladder cancer and TURP for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia is limited and contradictory. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients from 12 European hospitals treated with either TURB alone or simultaneous TURB and TURP (TURB+TURP) were retrospectively analysed. A propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 was performed with patients from the TURB+TURP group matched to TURB-alone patients. Associations between surgery approach with recurrence-free (RFS) and progression-free (PFS) survivals were assessed in Cox regression models before and after PSM. We performed a subgroup analysis in patients with risk factors for recurrence (multifocality and/or tumour size >3 cm). RESULTS: A total of 762 men were included, among whom, 76% (581) underwent a TURB alone and 24% (181) a TURB+TURP. There was no difference in terms of tumour characteristics between the groups. We observed comparable length of stay as well as complication rates including major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III) for the TURB-alone vs TURB+TURP groups, while the latest led to longer operative time (P < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 44 months, there were more recurrences in the TURB-alone (47%) compared to the TURB+TURP group (28%; P < 0.001). Interestingly, there were more recurrences at the bladder neck/prostatic fossa in the TURB-alone group (55% vs 3%, P < 0.001). TURB+TURP procedures were associated with improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.53; P < 0.001), but not PFS (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.90-2.98; P = 0.11). Within the PSM cohort of 254 patients, the simultaneous TURB+TURP was still associated with improved RFS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.49; P < 0.001). This was also true in the subgroup of 380 patients with recurrence risk factors (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.62; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our contemporary cohort, simultaneous TURB and TURP seems to be an oncologically safe option that may, even, improve RFS by potentially preventing disease recurrence at the bladder neck and in the prostatic fossa.