MRI-guided Focused Ultrasound Focal Therapy for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Final Results from a 2-year Phase II Clinical Trial.

Background MRI-guided focal therapy (FT) allows for accurate targeting of localized clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) while preserving healthy prostate tissue, but the long-term outcomes of this approach require more study. Purpose To assess the 2-year oncological and functional outcomes of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with targeted FT. Materials and Methods In this single-center prospective phase II trial, men with localized unifocal intermediate-risk PCa underwent transrectal MRI-guided focused ultrasound between July 2016 and July 2019. Planned ablation volumes included 10-mm margins when possible. Data regarding adverse events were collected and quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by participants at 6 weeks and at 5, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. Multiparametric MRI and targeted and systematic biopsies were performed at 24 months. Ablation volumes were determined by manual contouring of nonperfused volumes on immediate contrast-enhanced images. Generalized estimating equations were used to model trends in quality-of-life measures. Results Treatment was successfully completed in the 44 participants (median age, 67 years; IQR, 62-70 years; 36 patients with grade group [GG] 2; eight patients with GG 3). No major adverse events from treatment were recorded. One participant refused biopsy at 24 months. After 2 years, 39 of 43 participants (91%) had no csPCa at the treatment site and 36 of 43 (84%) had no cancer in the entire gland. No changes in International Index of Erectile Function-15 score or International Prostate Symptom Score were observed during 2-year follow-up (P = .73 and .39, respectively). Conclusion The majority of men treated with MRI-guided focused ultrasound for intermediate risk PCa had negative results for csPCa at biopsy 2 years after treatment. Additionally, there was no significant decline in quality of life per the validated questionnaires. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02968784 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Woodrum in this issue.

The role of [18F]-DCFPyL PET/MRI radiomics for pathological grade group prediction in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of [18F]-DCFPyL PET/MRI radiomics for the prediction of pathological grade group in prostate cancer (PCa) in therapy-naïve patients. METHODS: Patients with confirmed or suspected PCa, who underwent [18F]-DCFPyL PET/MRI (n = 105), were included in this retrospective analysis of two prospective clinical trials. Radiomic features were extracted from the segmented volumes following the image biomarker standardization initiative (IBSI) guidelines. Histopathology obtained from systematic and targeted biopsies of the PET/MRI-detected lesions was the reference standard. Histopathology patterns were dichotomized as ISUP GG 1-2 vs. ISUP GG ≥ 3 categories. Different single-modality models were defined for feature extraction, including PET- and MRI-derived radiomic features. The clinical model included age, PSA, and lesions' PROMISE classification. Single models, as well as different combinations of them, were generated to calculate their performances. A cross-validation approach was used to evaluate the internal validity of the models. RESULTS: All radiomic models outperformed the clinical models. The best model for grade group prediction was the combination of PET + ADC + T2w radiomic features, showing sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC of 0.85, 0.83, 0.84, and 0.85, respectively. The MRI-derived (ADC + T2w) features showed sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC of 0.88, 0.78, 0.83, and 0.84, respectively. PET-derived features showed 0.83, 0.68, 0.76, and 0.79, respectively. The baseline clinical model showed 0.73, 0.44, 0.60, and 0.58, respectively. The addition of the clinical model to the best radiomic model did not improve the diagnostic performance. The performances of MRI and PET/MRI radiomic models as per the cross-validation scheme yielded an accuracy of 0.80 (AUC = 0.79), whereas clinical models presented an accuracy of 0.60 (AUC = 0.60). CONCLUSION: The combined [18F]-DCFPyL PET/MRI radiomic model was the best-performing model and outperformed the clinical model for pathological grade group prediction, indicating a complementary value of the hybrid PET/MRI model for non-invasive risk stratification of PCa. Further prospective studies are required to confirm the reproducibility and clinical utility of this approach.

Surgical Site Infections During the Pandemic: The Impact of the "COVID Bundle".

BACKGROUND: A reduction in surgical site infections (SSIs) has been reported in several discrete patient populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Herein, this study evaluates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on SSI in a large patient cohort incorporating multiple surgical disciplines. We hypothesize that enhanced infection control and heightened awareness of such measures is analogous to an SSI care bundle, the hypothetical "COVID bundle", and may impact SSI rates. METHOD: Data collected for the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program between January 1, 2015, and April 1, 2021, were retrospectively analyzed. SSI rates were compared among time-dependent patient cohorts: Cohort A (pre-pandemic, N = 24,060, 87%) and Cohort B (pandemic, N = 3698, 13%). Time series and multivariable analyses predicted pre-pandemic and pandemic SSI trends and tested for association with timing of surgery. RESULTS: The overall SSI incidence was reduced in Cohort B versus Cohort A (2.8% vs. 4.5%, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis indicated a downward SSI trend before pandemic onset (IRR 0.997, 95% CI 0.994, 1). At pandemic onset, the trend reduced by a relative factor of 39% (IRR 0.601, 95% CI 0.338, 1.069). SSI then trended upward during the pandemic (IRR 1.035, 95% CI 0.965, 1.111). SSI rates significantly trended downward in general surgical patients at pandemic onset (IRR 0.572, 95% CI 0.353, 0.928). CONCLUSION: Although overall SSI incidence was reduced during the pandemic, a statistically significant decrease in the predicted SSI rate only occurred in general surgical patients at pandemic onset. This trend may suggest a positive impact of the "COVID bundle" on SSI rates in these patients.

Prevalence of adverse pathology features in grade group 2 prostatectomy specimens with syn- or metachronous metastatic disease.

BACKGROUND: To validate the importance of recently established adverse histopathology features (cribriform pattern and intraductal carcinoma) as contra-indication for deferred treatment of Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) (grade group [GG] 2) prostate cancer, we investigated their frequency in GG2 radical prostatectomies with syn- or metachronous metastatic disease. METHODS: GG2 prostatectomy specimens of patients with concomitant lymph node metastasis or distant metastasis at follow-up were identified in a clinical database of a tertiary care center and their pathology was reviewed for pathological stage, lymphovascular invasion, Gleason grade 4 subpatterns, presence of tertiary grade 5, and ductal adenocarcinoma histology. A control group of 99 GG2 prostatectomy specimens who had no metastatic disease (controls) was reviewed for the same adverse pathological features. RESULTS: Of 1860 GG2 prostatectomy specimens (operated between 2002 and 2020), 45 (2.4%) had concurrent regional lymph node metastases or distant metastases at follow-up. Pathological stage distribution of cases and controls was 24% and 79% pT2, 42% and 15% pT3a, 33% and 6.1% pT3b -T4, respectively (p < 0.001). Eleven of 45 cases (24%) had ≤10% Gleason grade 4 component. Cribriform pattern or intraductal carcinoma was present in 84% of cases versus 34% of controls (p < 0.001), tertiary grade 5 in 16% of cases versus 5% controls (p = 0.05) and ductal adenocarcinoma in 16% of cases versus 2% of controls (p = 0.004). Among the seven cases without cribriform or intraductal carcinoma, two displayed ductal adenocarcinoma features. CONCLUSIONS: Well-established unfavorable histopathologic features (intraductal and cribriform pattern carcinoma, ductal adenocarcinoma) are represented in about 90% of GG2 prostate cancers with local or distant metastatic disease and are much less common (38%) in those without metastatic disease. Strikingly, about 25% of GG2 prostatectomy cases with metastatic disease had an organ-confined disease and/or a small percentage of Gleason grade 4 pattern. This further emphasizes the relative importance of these adverse histopathological features (cribriform, intraductal, and ductal adenocarcinoma) rather than percentage Gleason grade 4 as contra-indicator of deferred treatment for patients with GG2 prostate cancer.

Comparison of Micro-US and Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Detection in Biopsy-Naive Men.

Background Multiparametric MRI has led to increased detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Micro-US is being investigated for csPCa detection. Purpose To compare multiparametric MRI and micro-US in detecting csPCa (grade group ≥2) and to determine the proportion of MRI nodules visible at micro-US for real-time targeted biopsy. Materials and methods This prospective, single-center trial enrolled biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) between May 2019 and September 2020. All patients underwent multiparametric MRI followed by micro-US; findings at both were interpreted in a blinded fashion, followed by targeted biopsy and nontargeted systematic biopsy using micro-US. Proportions were compared using the exact McNemar test. The differences in proportions were calculated. Results Ninety-four men (median age, 61 years; IQR, 57-68 years) were included. MRI- and micro-US-targeted biopsy depicted csPCa in 37 (39%) and 33 (35%) of the 94 men, respectively (P = .22); clinically insignificant PCa in 14 (15%) and 15 (16%) (P > .99); and cribriform and/or intraductal PCa in 14 (15%) and 13 (14%) (P > .99). The MRI- plus micro-US-targeted biopsy pathway depicted csPCa in 38 of the 94 (40%) men. The addition of nontargeted systematic biopsy to MRI- plus micro-US-targeted biopsy did not enable identification of any additional men with csPCa but did help identify nine additional men with clinically insignificant PCa (P = .04). Biopsy was avoided in 32 of the 94 men (34%) with MRI and nine of the 94 men (10%) with micro-US (P < .001). Among 93 MRI targets, 62 (67%) were prospectively visible at micro-US. Conclusion MRI and micro-US showed similar rates of prostate cancer detection, but more biopsies were avoided with the MRI pathway than with micro-US, with no benefit of adding nontargeted systematic biopsy to the MRI- plus micro-US-targeted biopsy pathway. Most MRI lesions were prospectively visible at micro-US, allowing real-time targeted biopsy. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no.: NCT03938376 © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Prostate biopsy in the era of MRI-targeting: towards a judicious use of additional systematic biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop and compare strategies that help optimize current prostate biopsy practice by identifying patients who may forgo concurrent systematic biopsy (SBx) in favor of MRI-targeted (TBx) alone. METHODS: Retrospective study on 745 patients who underwent combined MRI-TBx plus SBx. Primary outcome was the upgrade to clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; grade group ≥ 2) on SBx versus MRI-TBx. Variables (age, previous biopsy status, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, index lesion size/location, number of lesions, PSA, PSA density, prostate volume) associated with the primary outcome were identified by logistic regression and used for biopsy strategies. Clinical utility was assessed by decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: SBx detected 47 (6%) additional men with csPCa. The risk of detecting csPCa uniquely on SBx was significantly lower in men with PI-RADS 5 (versus PI-RADS 3: OR 0.30, p = 0.03; versus PI-RADS 4: OR 0.33, p = 0.01), and previous negative biopsy (versus previous positive biopsy: OR 0.40, p = 0.007), and increased with age (per 10 years: OR 1.64, p = 0.016). No significant association was observed for other variables. DCA identified the following strategies as most useful: (a) avoid SBx in men with PI-RADS 5 and (b) additionally in those with previous negative biopsy, resulting in avoiding SBx in 201 (27%) and 429 (58%), while missing csPCa in 5 (1%) and 15 (2%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Not all men benefit equally from the combination of SBx and MRI-TBx. SBx avoidance in men with PI-RADS 5 and/or previous negative biopsy may reduce the risk of excess biopsies with a low risk of missing csPCa. KEY POINTS: • In men undergoing MRI-targeted biopsy, the risk of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) only on additional systematic biopsy (SBx) decreased in men with PI-RADS 5, previous negative biopsy, and younger age. • Using these variables may help select men who could avoid the risk of excess SBx. • If missing csPCa in 5% was acceptable, forgoing SBx in men with PI-RADS 5 and/or previous negative biopsy enabled the highest net reduction in SBx.

"Bring the Hoses to Where the Fire Is!": Differential Impacts of Marginalization and Socioeconomic Status on COVID-19 Case Counts and Healthcare Costs.

OBJECTIVES: Local health leaders and the Director General of the World Health Organization alike have observed that COVID-19 "does not discriminate." Nevertheless, the disproportionate representation of people of low socioeconomic status among those infected resembles discrimination. This population-based retrospective cohort study examined COVID-19 case counts and publicly funded healthcare costs in Ontario, Canada, with a focus on marginalization. METHODS: Individuals with their first positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 test from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020, were linked to administrative databases and matched to negative/untested controls. Mean net (COVID-19-attributable) costs were estimated for 30 days before and after diagnosis, and differences among strata of age, sex, comorbidity, and measures of marginalization were assessed using analysis of variance tests. RESULTS: We included 28 893 COVID-19 cases (mean age 54 years, 56% female). Most cases remained in the community (20 545, 71.1%) or in long-term care facilities (4478, 15.5%), whereas 944 (3.3%) and 2926 (10.1%) were hospitalized, with and without intensive care unit, respectively. Case counts were skewed across marginalization strata with 2 to 7 times more cases in neighborhoods with low income, high material deprivation, and highest ethnic concentration. Mean net costs after diagnosis were higher for males ($4752 vs $2520 for females) and for cases with higher comorbidity ($1394-$7751) (both P < .001) but were similar across levels of most marginalization dimensions (range $3232-$3737, all P ≥ .19). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that allocating resources unequally to marginalized individuals may improve equality in outcomes. It highlights the importance of reducing risk of COVID-19 infection among marginalized individuals to reduce overall costs and increase system capacity.

Exploring the value of using patient-oriented MRI reports in clinical practice - a pilot study.

PURPOSE: Standard radiology reports (SRR) are designed to communicate information between doctors. With many patients having instantaneous access to SRRs on patient portals, interpretation without guidance from doctors can cause anxiety and panic. In this pilot study, we designed a patient-centred prostate MRI template report (PACERR) to address some of these challenges and tested whether PACERRs improve patient knowledge and experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients booked for clinical prostate MRI were randomly assigned to SRR or SRR + PACERR. Questionnaires included multiple-choice that targeted 4 domains (understanding, usefulness, next steps, emotional experience) hypothesized to improve with patient-centred reports and short answer questions, testing knowledge regarding MRI results. Clinical encounters were observed and recorded to explore whether adding PACERR improved communication. Likert scaled-responses and short-answer questions were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Of the 40 participants, the majority were MRI naïve (70%). Patients receiving a PACERR had higher scores in the categories of patient understanding (mean: 4.17 vs. 3.39, p=0.006), usefulness (mean: 4.58 vs. 3.07, p<0.001), and identifying next steps (mean: 1.89 vs. 3.03, p=0.003) but not emotional experience (mean: 4.18 vs. 3.79, p=0.22). PACERR participants found the layout and design more patient friendly (mean: 4.47 vs. 2.61, p<0.001) and easier to understand (mean: 4.37 vs. 2.38, p<0.001). In the knowledge section, overall, the PACERR arm scored better (87% vs. 56%, p=0.004). CONCLUSION: With the addition of prostate MRI PACERR, participants had better understanding of their results and felt more prepared to involve themselves in discussions with their doctor.

Avoiding Unnecessary Biopsy: MRI-based Risk Models versus a PI-RADS and PSA Density Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Background In validation studies, risk models for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; Gleason score ≥3+4) combining multiparametric MRI and clinical factors have demonstrated poor calibration (over- and underprediction) and limited use in avoiding unnecessary prostate biopsies. Purpose MRI-based risk models following local recalibration were compared with a strategy that combined Prostate Imaging Data and Reporting System (PI-RADS; version 2) and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd) to assess the potential reduction of unnecessary prostate biopsies. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 385 patients without prostate cancer diagnosis who underwent multipara-metric MRI (PI-RADS category ≥3) and MRI-targeted biopsy between 2015 and 2019. Recalibration and selection of the best-performing MRI model (MRI-European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC], van Leeuwen, Radtke, and Mehralivand models) were undertaken in cohort C1 (n = 242; 2015-2017). The impact on biopsy decisions was compared with an alternative strategy (no biopsy for PI-RADS category 3 plus PSAd < 0.1 ng/mL per milliliter) in cohort C2 (n = 143; 2018-2019). Discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility were assessed by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis, respectively. Results The prevalence of csPCa was 38% (93 of 242 patients) and 45% (64 of 143 patients) in cohorts C1 and C2, respectively. Decision curve analysis demonstrated the highest net benefit for the van Leeuwen and Mehralivand models in C1. Used for biopsy decisions in C2, van Leeuwen (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.9) and Mehralivand (AUC, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.86) enabled no net benefit at a risk threshold of 10%. Up to a risk threshold of 15%, net benefit remained inferior to the PI-RADS plus PSAd strategy, which avoided biopsy in 63 per 1000 men, without missing csPCa. Without prior recalibration in C1, three of four models (MRIERSPC, Radtke, Mehralivand) were poorly calibrated and not clinically useful in C2. Conclusion The number of unnecessary prostate biopsies in men with positive MRI may be safely reduced by using a prostate-specific antigen density-based strategy. In a risk-averse scenario, this strategy enabled better biopsy decisions compared with MRI-based risk models. ©RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

MRI-guided Focused Ultrasound Ablation for Localized Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Early Results of a Phase II Trial.

Background To reduce adverse effects of whole-gland therapy, participants with localized clinically significant prostate cancer can undergo MRI-guided focal therapy. Purpose To explore safety and early oncologic and functional outcomes of targeted focal high-intensity focused ultrasound performed under MRI-guided focused ultrasound for intermediate-risk clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods In this prospective phase II trial, between February 2016 and July 2019, men with unifocal clinically significant prostate cancer visible at MRI were treated with transrectal MRI-guided focused ultrasound. The primary end point was the 5-month biopsy (last recorded in December 2019) with continuation to the 24-month follow-up projected to December 2021. Real-time ablation monitoring was performed with MR thermography. Nonperfused volume was measured at treatment completion. Periprocedural complications were recorded. Follow-up included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function-15 (IIEF-15) score at 6 weeks and 5 months, and multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsy of the treated area at 5 months. The generalized estimating equation model was used for statistical analysis, and the Holm method was used to adjust P value. Results Treatment was successfully completed in all 44 men, 36 with grade group (GG) 2 and eight with GG 3 disease (median age, 67 years; interquartile range [IQR], 62-70 years). No major treatment-related adverse events occurred. Forty-one of 44 participants (93%; 95% CI: 82, 98) were free of clinically significant prostate cancer (≥6 mm GG 1 disease or any volume ≥GG 2 disease) at the treatment site at 5-month biopsy (median, seven cores). Median IIEF-15 and IPSS scores were similar at baseline and at 5 months (IIEF-15 score at baseline, 61 [IQR, 34-67] and at 5 months, 53 [IQR, 24-65.5], P = .18; IPSS score at baseline, 3.5 [IQR, 1.8-7] and at 5 months, 6 [IQR, 2-7.3], P = .43). Larger ablations (≥15 cm3) compared with smaller ones were associated with a decline in IIEF-15 scores at 6 weeks (adjusted P < .01) and at 5 months (adjusted P = .07). Conclusion Targeted focal therapy of intermediate-risk prostate cancer performed with MRI-guided focused ultrasound ablation was safe and had encouraging early oncologic and functional outcomes. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article See also the editorial by Tempany-Afdhal in this issue.

Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with 18F-DCFPyL PET/multiparametric MR.

PURPOSE: To assess whether 18F-DCFPyL PET/multiparametric (mp)MR contributes to the diagnosis of clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (PCa) compared to mpMR in patients with suspicion of PCa, or patients being considered for focal ablative therapies (FT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This ethics review board-approved, prospective study included 55 men with suspicion of PCa and negative systematic biopsies or clinically discordant low-risk PCa (n = 21) or those being considered for FT (n = 34) who received 18F-DCFPyL PET/mpMR. Each modality, PET, mpMR, and PET/MR (using the PROMISE classification), was assessed independently. All suspicious lesions underwent PET/MR-ultrasound fusion biopsies. RESULTS: There were 45/55 patients (81.8%) that had histologically proven PCa and 41/55 (74.5%) were diagnosed with csPCa. Overall, 61/114 lesions (53.5%) identified on any modality were malignant; 49/61 lesions (80.3%) were csPCa. On lesion-level analysis, for detection of csPCa, the sensitivity of PET was higher than that of mpMR and PET/MR (86% vs 67% and 69% [p = 0.027 and 0.041, respectively]), but at a lower specificity (32% vs 85% and 86%, respectively [p < 0.001]). The performance of MR and PET/MR was comparable. For identification of csPCa in PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions, the AUC (95% CI) for PET, mpMR, and PET/MR was 0.75 (0.65-0.86), 0.69 (0.56-0.82), and 0.78 (0.67-0.89), respectively. The AUC for PET/MR was significantly larger than that of mpMR (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: PSMA PET detects more csPCa than mpMR, but at low specificity. The performance PET/MR is better than mpMR for detection of csPCa in PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions. CLINICAL REGISTRATION: NCT03149861.

Attitude is everything: keep probe pitch neutral during side-fire prostate biopsy. A simulator study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate on a simulator a learnable technique to decrease deviation of biopsied cores from the template schema during freehand, side-fire systematic prostate biopsy (sPBx) with the goal of reducing prostate biopsy (PBx) false-negatives, thereby facilitating earlier sampling, diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant prostate cancer. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Using a PBx simulator with real-time three-dimensional visualization, we devised a freehand, pitch-neutral (0°, horizontal plane), side-fire, transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided sPBx technique in the left lateral decubitus position. Thirty-four trainees on four Canadian and US urology programmes learned the technique on the same simulator, which recorded deviation from the intended template location in a double-sextant template as well as the TRUS probe pitch at the time of sampling. We defined deviation as the shortest distance in millimeters between a core centre and its intended template location, template deviation as the mean of all deviations in a template, and mastery as achieving a template deviation ≤5.0 mm. RESULTS: All results are reported as mean ± sd. The mean absolute pitch and template deviation before learning the technique (baseline) were 8.2 ± 4.1° and 8.0 ± 2.7 mm, respectively, and after mastering the technique decreased to 4.5 ± 2.7° (P = 0.001) and 4.5 ± 0.6 mm (P < 0.001). Template deviation was related to mean absolute pitch (P < 0.001) and increased by 0.5 mm on average with each 1° increase in mean absolute pitch. Participants achieved mastery after practising 3.9 ± 2.9 double-sextant sets. There was no difference in time to perform a double-sextant set at baseline (277 ± 102 s) and mastery (283 ± 101 s; P = 0.39). CONCLUSION: A pitch-neutral side-fire technique reduced template deviation during simulated freehand TRUS-guided sPBx, suggesting it may also reduce PBx false-negatives in patients in a future clinical trial. This pitch-neutral technique can be taught and learned; the University of Florida has been teaching it to all Urology residents for the last 2 years.

A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of Irrigation "Bag Squeeze" to Manage Pain for Patients Undergoing Flexible Cystoscopy.

PURPOSE: We determined if the "bag squeeze" technique decreases pain during flexible cystoscopy in men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single center, prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial recruited 200 consenting participants who were ambulatory, outpatient males who had undergone prior cystoscopy and were not expected to require any secondary procedures. Men with prior urethral stricture or bladder neck contracture were excluded from study. Once eligibility was assessed and consent obtained, participants were randomized to undergo cystoscopy with the bag squeeze (group A) or the sham bag squeeze procedure (group B). Following cystoscopy, participants completed a pain questionnaire (visual analogue scale). Differences in mean pain score between groups were evaluated using Students' t-test with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were randomized and underwent flexible cystoscopy. Ten participants were ineligible because they required secondary procedures. Among the 190 eligible patients 97 were randomized to bag squeeze (group A) and 93 to sham bag squeeze (group B) with mean pain scores of 1.91 and 3.39, respectively (p <0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a clinically meaningful decrease in pain for men undergoing flexible cystoscopy when the irrigation bag squeeze technique was used vs placebo bag squeeze. Accordingly, this useful, simple and free method to improve patient comfort during flexible cystoscopy should be adopted by clinicians.

Does the Visibility of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer on Baseline Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Impact Clinical Outcomes?

PURPOSE: We assessed whether the visibility of Grade Group (GG) 1 prostate cancer on baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging affects clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 454 men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging between 2006 and 2018 with maximum GG1 prostate cancer inclusive of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was graded as negative, equivocal or positive. Assessed outcomes were treatment-free survival, biopsy upgrade-free survival and unfavorable disease at radical prostatectomy (pT 3 or greater and/or GG3 or greater). Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to estimate the impact of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinicopathological variables (age, year, prostate specific antigen density and measures of tumor volume on biopsy) on outcomes. RESULTS: During followup (median 45.2 months) 61 men had disease upgraded on followup biopsy and 139 underwent definitive treatment. In men with negative, equivocal and positive baseline multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 5 years, treatment-free survival was 79%, 73% and 49% (p <0.0001), treatment-free survival was 89%, 82% and 70% (p=0.002), and survival without unfavorable disease at radical prostatectomy was 98%, 98% and 86% (p=0.007), respectively. At multivariable analysis positive (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.21-3.09, p=0.006) and equivocal multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.11-3.68, p=0.02) were associated with shorter treatment-free survival, and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was a significant prognostic factor for upgrade-free survival (HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.06-3.86, p=0.03) and unfavorable disease at radical prostatectomy (HR 4.45, 95% CI 1.39-18.17, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Men with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and GG1 prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy are at increased risk for intervention, upgrading and unfavorable disease at radical prostatectomy compared to those with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging invisible GG1 prostate cancer.

Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Informed Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy Naïve Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with informed targeted biopsies has changed the paradigm of prostate cancer diagnosis. Randomized studies have demonstrated a diagnostic benefit of clinical significance for targeted biopsy compared to standard systematic biopsies. We evaluated whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy has superior diagnosis rates of any, clinically significant, high grade and clinically insignificant prostate cancer compared to systematic biopsy in biopsy naïve men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were searched in Medline®, Embase®, Web of Science and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception until 2019. Studies were selected by 2 authors independently, with disagreements resolved by consensus with a third author. Overall 1,951 unique references were identified and 100 manuscripts underwent full-text review. Data were pooled using random effects models. The meta-analysis is reported according to the PRISMA statement and the study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019128468). RESULTS: Overall 29 studies (13,845 patients) were analyzed. Compared to systematic biopsy, use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy was associated with a 15% higher rate of any prostate cancer diagnosis (95% CI 10-20, p <0.00001). This relationship was not affected by the study methodology (p=0.11). Diagnoses of clinically significant and high grade prostate cancer were more common in the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy group (risk difference 11%, 95% CI 0-20, p=0.05 and 2%, 95% CI 1-4, p=0.005, respectively) while there was no difference in diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (risk difference 0, 95% CI -3 to 3, p=0.96). Notably, the exclusion of systematic biopsy in the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy arm significantly modified the association between a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging strategy and lower rates of clinically insignificant prostate cancer diagnosis (p=0.01) without affecting the diagnosis rates of clinically significant or high grade prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to systematic biopsy a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy strategy results in a significantly higher diagnosis rate of any, clinically significant and high grade prostate cancer. Excluding systematic biopsy from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging informed targeted biopsy was associated with decreased rates of clinically insignificant prostate cancer diagnosis without affecting diagnosis of clinically significant or high grade prostate cancer.

Salvage radical prostatectomy following focal therapy: functional and oncological outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To report the oncological and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) after focal therapy (FT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent sRP after FT was performed. Clinical and pathological outcomes focussed on surgical complications, oncological, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: In all, 34 patients were identified. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 61 (8.25) years. FT modalities included high-intensity focussed ultrasound (19 patients), laser ablation (13), focal brachytherapy (one) and cryotherapy (one). The median (IQR) time from FT to recurrence was 10.9 (17.6) months. There were no rectal or ureteric injuries. Two (5.9%) patients had iatrogenic cystotomies and four (11.8%) developed bladder neck contractures. The mean (sd) hospital stay was 2.5 (2.1) days. The T-stage was pT2 in 14 (41.2%) patients, pT3a in 16 (47.1%), and pT3b in four (11.8%). In all, 13 (38%) patients had positive surgical margins (PSMs). Six (17.6%) patients received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). At a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, seven (20.6%) patients developed biochemical recurrence (BCR), and of these, six (17.6%) patients required salvage RT. PSMs were associated with worse BCR-free survival (hazard ratio 6.624, 95% confidence interval 2.243-19.563; P < 0.001). The median (IQR) preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function score was 7 (4.5-9.5) and 23.5 (15.75-25) respectively, while in the final follow-up the median (IQR) values were 7 (3.5-11) and 6 (5-12.25), respectively (P = 0.088 and P < 0.001). At last follow-up, 31 (91.2%) patients were continent, two (5.9%) had moderate (>1 pad/day) incontinence, and one (2.9%) required an artificial urinary sphincter. CONCLUSIONS: sRP should be considered as an option for patients who have persistent clinically significant prostate cancer or recurrence after FT. PSMs should be recognised as a risk for recurrent disease after sRP.

How I Do It - MRI-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy using the Fusion MR and Fusion Bx systems.

There is increasing evidence to support the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in men at risk for clinically significant prostate cancer to help identify lesions and inform biopsy. Randomized, level 1 evidence demonstrates that men who are managed with MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRF-TB) have more clinically significant prostate cancer and less clinically insignificant prostate cancer detected and avoid biopsy altogether more often than men who undergo systematic, whole-gland prostate biopsy (SPB). Furthermore, strategies that incorporate MRF-TB have lower rates of upgrading on radical prostatectomy compared to SPB. However, generalizing this data to wider practice is challenging because there is a learning curve for interpreting MRI and performing MRF-TB, and some of the fusion technologies are better than others. We describe our group's early experience with the Fusion MR and Fusion Bx systems (Focal Healthcare, Toronto, ON, Canada). These products are designed with elastic fusion technology that is user-friendly, intuitive and accurate. The Fusion MR contouring system is straightforward and allows for contouring with several MRI sequences simultaneously. The Fusion Bx biopsy system has a semi-robotic arm that accounts for prostate deformation and patient movement and allows for freehand-like access, which is a seamless transition from SPB for clinicians. There were 68 lesions targeted in the first 51 patients. The overall cancer detection rate was 22%/61%/83% for PI-RADS 3/4/5, respectively. The Gleason grade group 2 prostate cancer or higher rate was 6%/47%/75% for PI-RADS 3/4/5, respectively. There were no major complications in this cohort of patients. Limitations of this study include small number of patients and lack of formal follow up to rule out sepsis. Overall, the Fusion MR and Fusion Bx systems are accurate, straightforward and safe to use for MRF-TB. Early experience does not show any significant learning curve.

Predictors of prostate-specific antigen testing in men aged ≥55 years: A cross-sectional study based on patient-reported outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the predictors of prostate-specific antigen discussion with a physician and prostate-specific antigen testing in men aged ≥55 years. METHODS: Utilizing the USA Health Information National Trends Survey, 4th Ed., a cross-sectional study from 2011 to 2014 was carried out to analyze the factors predicting prostate-specific antigen testing and discussion in men ≥55 years. Associations between each covariate and prostate-specific antigen discussion/testing were determined. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine clinically relevant predictors of prostate-specific antigen discussion/testing. Due to multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was used. RESULTS: A total of 2731 men included in the Health Information National Trends Survey were analyzed. Several socioeconomic parameters were found to increase the likelihood of men aged ≥55 years to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing: living with a spouse, a higher level of education (college graduate or above), a higher income (>$50 000 annually) and previous history of any cancer. In contrast, current smokers were less likely to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing. Having a prostate-specific antigen discussion with a physician was more likely for men surveyed in 2014, for men who were living with a spouse, who had a higher annual income (>$50 000 annually) and those with a history of any cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Significant inequalities in prostate-specific antigen testing and discussion exist among men in the USA, mainly driven by socioeconomic factors. Ideally, prostate-specific antigen testing and discussion should be based on relevant clinical factors with a shared decision-making approach for every man. Therefore, a better understanding of the socioeconomic factors influencing prostate-specific antigen testing/discussions can inform strategies to reduce existing gaps in care.

Smarter screening for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is the second commonest cancer among men. In the large European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has been shown to substantially reduce prostate cancer mortality. However, PSA screening is known to lead to more unnecessary prostate biopsies and over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Therefore, it is imperative that smarter screening methods be developed to overcome the weaknesses of PSA screening. This review explores the novel screening tools that are available. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed regarding newer biomarkers, imaging techniques and risk-predicting models that are used to screen for prostate cancer in mainly biopsy-naïve men. RESULTS: Novel serum-based models like 4Kscore® and prostate health index (PHI) are generally better than PSA alone in detecting clinically significant cancer. Similarly, urine-based biomarkers like prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and HOXC6/DLX1 have been shown to be more accurate than PSA screening. More recently, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is gaining popularity for its ability to detect clinically significant cancer. There is also evidence that combining individual tests to develop prediction models can reliably predict high-risk prostate cancers while reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies. Combinations such as the Stockholm-3 model (STHLM3) and other novel combinations are presented in this review. CONCLUSION: While we continue to find the smarter screening methods that are reliable, precise, and cost-effective, we continue to advocate shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening in order to work in our patients' best interests.

Defining a Cohort that May Not Require Repeat Prostate Biopsy Based on PCA3 Score and Magnetic Resonance Imaging: The Dual Negative Effect.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer over diagnosis and overtreatment are concerns for clinicians and policy makers. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the PCA3 (prostate cancer antigen 3) urine test select for clinically significant cases. We explored how well the tests performed together with previous biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In accordance with ethics committee approval we collected clinicopathological data on all patients in whom a PCA3 test was done from January 2011 to June 2016. This included patients on active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer and those without prostate cancer who had previous negative biopsies and suspicion of occult disease. We explored whether age, prostate specific antigen, PCA3 score, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, digital rectal examination, family history and prostate size would predict clinically significant prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. The negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and PCA3 score was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 470 patients were included in study. The PCA3 score was abnormal at 35 or greater in 32.5% of cases. In the multivariate model including 154 men only age (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) score 4 (OR 16.6, 95% CI 3.9-70.0) or 5 (OR 28.3, 95% CI 5.7-138) and PCA3 score (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.0-8.8) predicted clinically significant cancer on biopsy. No patient with negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and a normal PCA3 score had clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy for a negative predictive value of 100% (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with dual negative tests (multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and PCA3 score) clinically significant prostate cancer was never found on biopsy, which may be unnecessary in this group. This study was limited by its retrospective design, selection bias and lack of cost-effectiveness data.