Treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: from doublet therapy to triplet therapy.

For metastatic prostate cancer, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the key strategy to control the disease. However, after 18-24 months of treatment, most patients will progress from metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) even with ADT. Once patients enter into mCRPC, they face with significant declines in quality of life and a dramatically reduced survival period. Thus, doublet therapy, which combines ADT with new hormone therapy (NHT) or ADT with docetaxel chemotherapy, substitutes ADT alone and has become the "gold standard" for the treatment of mHSPC. In recent years, triplet therapy, which combines ADT with NHT and docetaxel chemotherapy, has also achieved impressive effects in mHSPC. This article provides a comprehensive review of the recent applications of the triplet therapy in the field of mHSPC.

Feasibilities and outcomes of patients treated with simultaneous prostate biopsy and general urological surgeries.

The present single-center retrospective clinical real-world study aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of patients who underwent simultaneous prostate biopsy and general urological surgeries. The medical records of 49 patients who underwent prostate biopsy and general urological surgeries simultaneously from October 2016 to June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients' outcomes were evaluated 3 days, 1 month and 6 months after biopsy. Of the 49 biopsy cases, 41 were treated by transurethral prostatectomy, two by ureteroscopic lithotripsy, two by laparoscopic renal cyst decortication, two by cystostomy and two by ureteral stent extraction. The overall detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer was 22.4%. The rate in patients with a prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score of 4-5 was 100%, while in cases with a PI-RADS score of <3 it was 7.1%. Postoperative complications within 3 days included hematuria in 39 (79.6%) cases, fever in three (6.1%) cases and hematochezia in two (4.1%) cases. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hematuria between the transrectal and transperineal approaches; however, the overall incidence of complications was significantly reduced after switching from a transrectal approach to a transperineal approach. No complications were observed after 1 or 6 months. In summary, combining simultaneous prostate biopsy to general urological surgeries is a safe and feasible approach. The transperineal approach has a lower incidence of complications. This method may benefit certain patients who are concurrently undergoing general urological surgeries and are under suspicion of prostate cancer in real-world clinical practice.

Modified Predictive Model and Nomogram by Incorporating Prebiopsy Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Clinical Indicators for Prostate Biopsy Decision Making.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to explore the value of combining bpMRI and clinical indicators in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and developing a prediction model and Nomogram to guide clinical decision-making. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 530 patients who underwent prostate biopsy due to elevated serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels and/or suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE). Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to the training group (n = 371, 70%) and validation group (n = 159, 30%). All patients underwent prostate bpMRI examination, and T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences were collected before biopsy and were scored, which were respectively named T2WI score and DWI score according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v.2) scoring protocol, and then PI-RADS scoring was performed. We defined a new bpMRI-based parameter named Total score (Total score = T2WI score + DWI score). PI-RADS score and Total score were separately included in the multivariate analysis of the training group to determine independent predictors for csPCa and establish prediction models. Then, prediction models and clinical indicators were compared by analyzing the area under the curve (AUC) and decision curves. A Nomogram for predicting csPCa was established using data from the training group. RESULTS: In the training group, 160 (43.1%) patients had prostate cancer (PCa), including 128 (34.5%) with csPCa. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the PI-RADS score, Total score, f/tPSA, and PSA density (PSAD) were independent predictors of csPCa. The prediction model that was defined by Total score, f/tPSA, and PSAD had the highest discriminatory power of csPCa (AUC = 0.931), and the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 85.1% and 87.5%, respectively. Decision curve analysis (DCA) showed that the prediction model achieved an optimal overall net benefit in both the training group and the validation group. In addition, the Nomogram predicted csPCa revealed good estimation when compared with clinical indicators. CONCLUSION: The prediction model and Nomogram based on bpMRI and clinical indicators exhibit a satisfactory predictive value and improved risk stratification for csPCa, which could be used for clinical biopsy decision-making.