Regional Histopathology and Prostate MRI Positivity: A Secondary Analysis of the PROMIS Trial.

Background The effects of regional histopathologic changes on prostate MRI scans have not been accurately quantified in men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and no previous biopsy. Purpose To assess how Gleason grade, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), inflammation, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), or atypical small acinar proliferation within a Barzell zone affects the odds of MRI visibility. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of the Prostate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS; May 2012 to November 2015), consecutive participants who underwent multiparametric MRI followed by a combined biopsy, including 5-mm transperineal mapping (TPM), were evaluated. TPM pathologic findings were reported at the whole-prostate level and for each of 20 Barzell zones per prostate. An expert panel blinded to the pathologic findings reviewed MRI scans and declared which Barzell areas spanned Likert score 3-5 lesions. The relationship of Gleason grade and MCCL to zonal MRI outcome (visible vs nonvisible) was assessed using generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for individual participants. Inflammation, PIN, and atypical small acinar proliferation were similarly assessed in men who had negative TPM results. Results Overall, 161 men (median age, 62 years [IQR, 11 years]) were evaluated and 3179 Barzell zones were assigned MRI status. Compared with benign areas, the odds of MRI visibility were higher when a zone contained cancer with a Gleason score of 3+4 (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% CI: 1.9, 4.9; P < .001) or Gleason score greater than or equal to 4+3 (OR, 8.7; 95% CI: 4.5, 17.0; P < .001). MCCL also determined visibility (OR, 1.24 per millimeter increase; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.33; P < .001), but odds were lower with each prostate volume doubling (OR, 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.9). In men who were TPM-negative, the presence of PIN increased the odds of zonal visibility (OR, 3.7; 95% CI: 1.5, 9.1; P = .004). Conclusion An incremental relationship between cancer burden and prostate MRI visibility was observed. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia contributed to false-positive MRI findings. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT01292291 © RSNA, 2022 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Harmath in this issue.

Evaluation of Outcomes Following Focal Ablative Therapy for Treatment of Localized Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients >70 Years: A Multi-institute, Multi-energy 15-Year Experience.

PURPOSE: In older patients who do not wish to undergo watchful waiting, focal therapy could be an alternative to the more morbid radical treatment. We evaluated the role of focal therapy in patients 70 years and older as an alternative management modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 649 patients across 11 UK sites receiving focal high-intensity focused ultrasound or cryotherapy between June 2006 and July 2020 reported within the UK-based HEAT (HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment) and ICE (International Cryotherapy Evaluation) registries were evaluated. Primary outcome was failure-free survival, defined by need for more than 1 focal reablation, progression to radical treatment, development of metastases, need for systemic treatment, or prostate cancer-specific death. This was compared to the failure-free survival in patients undergoing radical treatment via a propensity score weighted analysis. RESULTS: Median age was 74 years (IQR: 72, 77) and median follow-up 24 months (IQR: 12, 41). Sixty percent had intermediate-risk disease and 35% high-risk disease. A total of 113 patients (17%) required further treatment. Sixteen had radical treatment and 44 required systemic treatment. Failure-free survival was 82% (95% CI: 76%-87%) at 5 years. Comparing patients who had radical therapy to those who had focal therapy, 5-year failure-free survival was 96% (95% CI: 93%-100%) and 82% (95% CI: 75%-91%) respectively (P < .001). Ninety-three percent of those in the radical treatment arm had received radiotherapy as their primary treatment with its associated use of androgen deprivation therapy, thereby leading to potential overestimation of treatment success in the radical treatment arm, especially given the similar metastases-free and overall survival rates seen. CONCLUSIONS: We propose focal therapy to be an effective management option for the older or comorbid patient who is unsuitable for or not willing to undergo radical treatment.

Accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer by combining Proclarix with magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVES: To assess of the clinical performance of Proclarix® (a novel Conformité Européenne [CE]-marked biomarker test aiding in the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer [csPCa]) alone or in combination with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to predict csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included blood samples from 721 men undergoing mpMRI followed by biopsy at University College London, London, and Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. Samples were tested blindly. The Proclarix-MRI model combining prostate volume, Proclarix and mpMRI results was trained using the UCL cohort (n = 159) and validated in the Vall d'Hebron cohort (n = 562). Its diagnostic performance was established in correlation to biopsy outcome and compared to available clinical parameters and risk calculators. RESULTS: Clinical performance of the Proclarix-MRI model in the validation cohort did not significantly differ from the training cohort and resulted in a sensitivity for csPCa of 90%, 90% negative predictive value and 66% positive predictive value. The Proclarix-MRI score's specificity (68%) was significantly (P < 0.001) better than the MRI-European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk score (51%), Proclarix (27%) or mpMRI (28%) alone. In addition, Proclarix by itself was found to be useful in the MRI Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score 3 subgroup by outperforming prostate-specific antigen density in terms of specificity (25% vs 13%, P = 0.004) at 100% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: When combined with mpMRI and prostate volume, Proclarix reliably predicted csPCa and ruled out men with no or indolent cancer. A large reduction of two thirds of unneeded biopsies was achieved. Proclarix can further be used with high confidence to reliably detect csPCa in men with an indeterminate PI-RADS score 3 mpMRI. Despite these encouraging results, further validation is needed.

The rapid assessment for prostate imaging and diagnosis (RAPID) prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To report outcomes within the Rapid Assessment for Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) diagnostic pathway, introduced to reduce patient and healthcare burdens and standardize delivery of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transperineal biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2130 patients from three centres who completed the RAPID pathway (3 April 2017 to 31 March 2020) were consecutively entered as a prospective registry. These patients were also compared to a pre-RAPID cohort of 2435 patients. Patients on the RAPID pathway with an MRI score 4 or 5 and those with PSA density ≥0.12 and an MRI score 3 were advised to undergo a biopsy. Primary outcomes were rates of biopsy and cancer detection. Secondary outcomes included comparison of transperineal biopsy techniques, patient acceptability and changes in time to diagnosis before and after the introduction of RAPID. RESULTS: The median patient age and PSA level were 66 years and 6.6 ng/mL, respectively. Biopsy could be omitted in 43% of patients (920/2130). A further 7.9% of patients (168/2130) declined a recommendation for biopsy. The percentage of biopsies avoided among sites varied (45% vs 36% vs 51%; P < 0.001). In all, 30% (221/742) had a local anaesthetic (grid and stepper) transperineal biopsy. Clinically significant cancer detection (any Gleason score ≥3 + 4) was 26% (560/2130) and detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 alone constituted 5.8% (124/2130); detection of Gleason score 3 + 3 did not significantly vary among sites (P = 0.7). Among participants who received a transperineal targeted biopsy, there was no difference in cancer detection rates among local anaesthetic, sedation and general anaesthetic groups. In the 2435 patients from the pre-RAPID cohor, time to diagnosis was 32.1 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.3-34.9) compared to 15.9 days (95% CI 12.9-34.9) in the RAPID group. A total of 141 consecutive patient satisfaction surveys indicated a high satisfaction rate with the pathway; 50% indicated a preference for having all tests on a single day. CONCLUSIONS: The RAPID prostate cancer diagnostic pathway allows 43% of men to avoid a biopsy while preserving good detection of clinically significant cancers and low detection of insignificant cancers, although there were some centre-level variations.

External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION: In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.

Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI of the prostate followed by targeted biopsy is recommended for patients at risk of prostate cancer. However, multiparametric ultrasound is more readily available than multiparametric MRI. Data from paired-cohort validation studies and randomised, controlled trials support the use of multiparametric MRI, whereas the evidence for individual ultrasound methods and multiparametric ultrasound is only derived from case series. We aimed to establish the overall agreement between multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study in seven hospitals in the UK. Patients at risk of prostate cancer, aged 18 years or older, with an elevated prostate-specific antigen concentration or abnormal findings on digital rectal examination underwent both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI. Multiparametric ultrasound consisted of B-mode, colour Doppler, real-time elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Multiparametric MRI included high-resolution T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging (dedicated high B 1400 s/mm2 or 2000 s/mm2 and apparent diffusion coefficient map), and dynamic contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted images. Patients with positive findings on multiparametric ultrasound or multiparametric MRI underwent targeted biopsies but were masked to their test results. If both tests yielded positive findings, the order of targeting at biopsy was randomly assigned (1:1) using stratified (according to centre only) block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of positive lesions on, and agreement between, multiparametric MRI and multiparametric ultrasound in identifying suspicious lesions (Likert score of ≥3), and detection of clinically significant cancer (defined as a Gleason score of ≥4 + 3 in any area or a maximum cancer core length of ≥6 mm of any grade [PROMIS definition 1]) in those patients who underwent a biopsy. Adverse events were defined according to Good Clinical Practice and trial regulatory guidelines. The trial is registered on ISRCTN, 38541912, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02712684, with recruitment and follow-up completed. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2016, and Nov 7, 2019, 370 eligible patients were enrolled; 306 patients completed both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI and 257 underwent a prostate biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound was positive in 272 (89% [95% CI 85-92]) of 306 patients and multiparametric MRI was positive in 238 patients (78% [73-82]; difference 11·1% [95% CI 5·1-17·1]). Positive test agreement was 73·2% (95% CI 67·9-78·1; κ=0·06 [95% CI -0·56 to 0·17]). Any cancer was detected in 133 (52% [95% CI 45·5-58]) of 257 patients, with 83 (32% [26-38]) of 257 being clinically significant by PROMIS definition 1. Each test alone would result in multiparametric ultrasound detecting PROMIS definition 1 cancer in 66 (26% [95% CI 21-32]) of 257 patients who had biopsies and multiparametric MRI detecting it in 77 (30% [24-36]; difference -4·3% [95% CI -8·3% to -0·3]). Combining both tests detected 83 (32% [95% CI 27-38]) of 257 clinically significant cancers as per PROMIS definition 1; of these 83 cancers, six (7% [95% CI 3-15]) were detected exclusively with multiparametric ultrasound, and 17 (20% [12-31]) were exclusively detected by multiparametric MRI (agreement 91·1% [95% CI 86·9-94·2]; κ=0·78 [95% CI 0·69-0·86]). No serious adverse events were related to trial activity. INTERPRETATION: Multiparametric ultrasound detected 4·3% fewer clinically significant prostate cancers than multiparametric MRI, but it would lead to 11·1% more patients being referred for a biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound could be an alternative to multiparametric MRI as a first test for patients at risk of prostate cancer, particularly if multiparametric MRI cannot be carried out. Both imaging tests missed clinically significant cancers detected by the other, so the use of both would increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancers compared with using each test alone. FUNDING: The Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Prostate Cancer UK, and UCLH Charity and Barts Charity.

Prostate cancer in transgender women: what does a urologist need to know?

OBJECTIVE: To review of the existing literature, current guidelines and standard of practice related to prostate cancer in transgender women, as the transgender population share many of the same healthcare needs as their cisgender counterparts, but may have additional specialist needs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a non-systematic review of the literature, current guidelines and standard of practice related to prostate cancer in transgender women. RESULTS: Our search revealed 10 case reports of prostate cancer in transgender women, four specialist opinion papers, six cohort studies, and four systematic reviews. The information in these publications were assimilated to produce a review of prostate cancer in transgender women. CONCLUSION: The risk of prostate cancer in transgender women who are not on gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or who have not had gender-affirming surgery (GAS) and gender non-conforming individuals (who may never commence GAHT or have GAS) is the same as that in the cis male population. In these patients, healthcare professionals need to be able to discuss screening, diagnostic and treatment options considering future wishes for gender-affirming treatment. Prostate cancer incidence in transgender women on GAHT or following GAS is lower than age-matched cis-male counterparts, but diagnosis and treatment is more nuanced. The present review discusses the existing literature about development and incidence of prostate cancer in this population, and makes recommendations about screening, the usefulness of diagnostic tools e.g. prostate-specific antigen and magnetic resonance imaging, and considerations when formulating treatment. Potential directions for future research are discussed, which will hopefully lead to development of robust evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer in transgender women.

Clinical and pathologic characteristics to select patients for focal therapy or partial gland ablation of nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Focal therapy or partial gland ablation for nonmetastatic prostate cancer is gaining popularity not just as an alternative to active surveillance, but as an acceptable alternative to whole gland therapy in appropriate cases. This review summarizes recent evidence to help select patients for optimal outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recommendations by expert panels have become less conservative with each meeting. As experience with older modalities for focal therapy grows, newer modalities continue to be introduced. We are now in a position to offer personalized treatment pathway considering nuances of each focal therapy modality. SUMMARY: The ideal case for focal therapy should be an MRI visible significant lesion (PIRADS score ≥ 3), with a positive biopsy for significant cancer (Gleason grade group 2-3) in the corresponding targeted biopsy area, and insignificant or absent disease in the nontarget random biopsy areas. Multifocal disease can also be selectively treated. Salvage focal ablation is an attractive treatment option for radio-recurrent or index focal therapy failure cases.

Adjusting for verification bias in diagnostic accuracy measures when comparing multiple screening tests - an application to the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study.

INTRODUCTION: Novel screening tests used to detect a target condition are compared against either a reference standard or other existing screening methods. However, as it is not always possible to apply the reference standard on the whole population under study, verification bias is introduced. Statistical methods exist to adjust estimates to account for this bias. We extend common methods to adjust for verification bias when multiple tests are compared to a reference standard using data from a prospective double blind screening study for prostate cancer. METHODS: Begg and Greenes method and multiple imputation are extended to include the results of multiple screening tests which determine condition verification status. These two methods are compared to the complete case analysis using the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study data. IP1-PROSTAGRAM used a paired-cohort double-blind design to evaluate the use of imaging as alternative tests to screen for prostate cancer, compared to a blood test called prostate specific antigen (PSA). Participants with positive imaging (index) and/or PSA (control) underwent a prostate biopsy (reference standard). RESULTS: When comparing complete case results to Begg and Greenes and methods of multiple imputation there is a statistically significant increase in the specificity estimates for all screening tests. Sensitivity estimates remained similar across the methods, with completely overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Negative predictive value (NPV) estimates were higher when adjusting for verification bias, compared to complete case analysis, even though the 95% confidence intervals overlap. Positive predictive value (PPV) estimates were similar across all methods. CONCLUSION: Statistical methods are required to adjust for verification bias in accuracy estimates of screening tests. Expanding Begg and Greenes method to include multiple screening tests can be computationally intensive, hence multiple imputation is recommended, especially as it can be modified for low prevalence of the target condition.

Prostate Radiofrequency Focal Ablation (ProRAFT) Trial: A Prospective Development Study Evaluating a Bipolar Radiofrequency Device to Treat Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We determined the early efficacy of bipolar radiofrequency ablation with a coil design for focal ablation of clinically significant localized prostate cancer visible at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective IDEAL phase 2 development study (Focal Prostate Radiofrequency Ablation, NCT02294903) recruited treatment-naïve patients with a single focus of significant localized prostate cancer (Gleason 7 or 4 mm or more of Gleason 6) concordant with a lesion visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Intervention was a focal ablation with a bipolar radiofrequency system (Encage™) encompassing the lesion and a predefined margin using nonrigid magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion. Primary outcome was the proportion of men with absence of significant localized disease on biopsy at 6 months. Trial followup consisted of serum prostate specific antigen, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 1 week, and 6 and 12 months post-ablation. Validated patient reported outcome measures for urinary, erectile and bowel functions, and adverse events monitoring system were used. Analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. RESULTS: Of 21 patients recruited 20 received the intervention. Baseline characteristics were median age 66 years (IQR 63-69) and preoperative median prostate specific antigen 7.9 ng/ml (5.3-9.6). A total of 18 patients (90%) had Gleason 7 disease with median maximum cancer 7 mm (IQR 5-10), for a median of 2.8 cc multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions (IQR 1.4-4.8). Targeted biopsy of the treated area (median number of cores 6, IQR 5-8) showed absence of significant localized prostate cancer in 16/20 men (80%), concordant with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. There was a low profile of side effects at patient reported outcome measures analysis and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy of significant localized prostate cancer associated with a magnetic resonance imaging lesion using bipolar radiofrequency showed early efficacy to ablate cancer with low rates of genitourinary and rectal side effects.

A Comparison of Prostate Cancer Detection between Visual Estimation (Cognitive Registration) and Image Fusion (Software Registration) Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: We compared clinically significant prostate cancer detection by visual estimation and image fusion targeted transperineal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter study included patients with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions undergoing visual estimation or image fusion targeted transperineal biopsy (April 2017-March 2020). Propensity score matching was performed using demographics (age and ethnicity), clinical features (prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, prostate specific antigen density and digital rectal examination), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging variables (number of lesions, PI-RADS® score, index lesion diameter, whether the lesion was diffuse and radiological T stage) and biopsy factors (number of cores, operator experience and anesthetic type). Matched groups were compared overall and by operator grade, PI-RADS score, lesion multiplicity, prostate volume and anesthetic type using targeted-only and targeted plus systematic histology. Multiple clinically significant prostate cancer thresholds were evaluated (primary: Gleason ≥3+4). RESULTS: A total of 1,071 patients with a median age of 67.3 years (IQR 61.3-72.4), median prostate specific antigen of 7.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.3-11.2) and 1,430 total lesions underwent targeted-only biopsies (visual estimation: 372 patients, 494 lesions; image fusion: 699 patients, 936 lesions). A total of 770 patients with a median age of 67.4 years (IQR 61-72.1), median prostate specific antigen of 7.1 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.6) and 919 total lesions underwent targeted plus systematic biopsies (visual estimation: 271 patients, 322 lesions; image fusion: 499 patients, 597 lesions). Matched comparisons demonstrated no overall difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection between visual estimation and image fusion (primary: targeted-only 54% vs 57.4%, p=0.302; targeted plus systematic 51.2% vs 58.2%, p=0.123). Senior urologists had significantly higher detection rates using image fusion (primary: targeted-only 45.4% vs 63.7%, p=0.001; targeted plus systematic 39.4% vs 64.5%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found no overall difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection, although image fusion may be superior in experienced hands.

Outcomes of the RAFT trial: robotic surgery after focal therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To report toxicity of treatment observed in men participating in the Robotic surgery After Focal Therapy (RAFT) clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men were eligible for this prospective single group interventional study if they had histologically confirmed recurrent/residual prostate adenocarcinoma following primary FT. The short-form Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) measured prior to salvage robotic prostatectomy (S-RARP) and 3-monthly post-operatively together with Clavien-Dindo complications (I-IV). Secondary outcomes included biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCFS) following surgery and need for salvage treatment after surgery. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03011606. RESULTS: Twenty-four men were recruited between February 2016 and September 2018. 1 patient withdrew from the trial after consenting and before S-RARP. 23 men completed 12-month post S-RARP follow-up. Median EPIC-26 urinary continence scores initially deteriorated after 3 months (82.4 vs 100) but there was no statistically significant difference from baseline at 12 months (100 vs 100, P = 0.31). Median lower urinary tract symptom scores improved after 12 months compared to baseline (93.8 vs 87.5, P = 0.01). At 12 months, 19/23 (83%) were pad-free and 22/23 (96%) required 0/1 pads. Median sexual function subscale scores deteriorated and remained low at 12 months (22.2 vs 58.3, P < 0.001). Utilising a minimally important difference of nine points, at 12 months after surgery 17/23 (74%) reported urinary continence to be 'better' or 'not different' to pre-operative baseline. The corresponding figure for sexual function (utilising a minimally important difference of 12 points) was 7/23 (30%). There was no statistically significant difference on median bowel/hormonal subscale scores. Only a single patient had a post-operative complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade I). BCFS at 12 months after surgery was 82.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60.1-93.1%) while 4/23 (17%) received salvage radiation. CONCLUSIONS: The RAFT clinical trial suggests toxicity of surgery after FT is low, with good urinary function outcomes, albeit sexual function deteriorated overall. Oncological outcomes at 12 months appear acceptable.

Role of multiparametric prostate MRI in the management of prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer has traditionally been diagnosed by an elevation in PSA or abnormal exam leading to a systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. This diagnostic pathway underdiagnoses clinically significant disease while over diagnosing clinically insignificant disease. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the recent literature regarding the role of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in the management of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A thorough literature review was performed using PubMed to identify articles discussing use of mpMRI of the prostate in management of prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of mpMRI of the prostate addresses the shortcomings of the prostate biopsy while providing several other advantages. mpMRI allows some men to avoid an immediate biopsy and permits visualization of areas likely to harbor clinically significant cancer prior to biopsy to facilitate use of MR-targeted prostate biopsies. This allows for reduction in diagnosis of clinically insignificant disease as well as improved detection and better characterization of higher risk cancers, as well as the improved selection of patients for active surveillance. In addition, mpMRI can be used for selection and monitoring of patients for active surveillance and treatment planning during surgery and focal therapy.

Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate®500) (March/2007-November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6-12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. RESULTS: 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours.

Evaluating the Trade-Offs Men with Localized Prostate Cancer Make between the Risks and Benefits of Treatments: The COMPARE Study.

PURPOSE: The COMPARE (COMparing treatment options for ProstAte cancer) study aimed to evaluate and quantify the trade-offs patients make between different aspects of active surveillance and definitive therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A discrete choice experiment tool was used to elicit patient preferences for different treatment characteristics in 34 urology departments. Patients with localized prostate cancer completed the discrete choice experiment within 1 week of being diagnosed and before they made treatment decisions. The discrete choice experiment was pretested (5) and piloted (106) with patients. Patients chose their preferred treatment profile based on the 6 characteristics of treatment type (active surveillance, focal therapy, radical therapy), return to normal activities, erectile function, urinary function, not needing more cancer treatment and 10 to 15-year cancer specific survival. Different tools were designed for patients with low-intermediate (468) and high risk (166) disease. An error components conditional logit model was used to estimate preferences and trade-offs between treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Patients with low-intermediate risk disease were willing to trade 6.99% absolute decrease in survival to have active surveillance over definitive therapy. They were willing to trade 0.75%, 0.46% and 0.19% absolute decrease in survival for a 1-month reduction in time to return to normal activities and 1% absolute improvements in urinary and sexual function, respectively. Patients with high risk disease were willing to trade 3.10%, 1.04% and 0.41% absolute decrease in survival for a 1-month reduction in time to return to normal activities and 1% absolute improvements in urinary and sexual function, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low-intermediate risk prostate cancer preferred active surveillance to definitive therapy. Patients of all risk levels were willing to trade cancer specific survival for improved quality of life.

Prostate Specific Antigen Criteria to Diagnose Failure of Cancer Control following Focal Therapy of Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound.

PURPOSE: We determined whether prostate specific antigen criteria after focal high intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostate cancer could diagnose treatment failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 598 patients in a prospectively maintained national database underwent focal high intensity focused ultrasound with a Sonablate® 500 device from March 2007 to November 2016. Followup consisted of 3-month clinic visits and prostate specific antigen testing in year 1 with prostate specific antigen measurement every 6 to 12 months and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with biopsy for magnetic resonance imaging suspicious for recurrence. Treatment failure was considered any secondary treatment, tumor recurrence with Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastasis and/or prostate cancer related mortality. To diagnose failure we evaluated a series of nadir + x thresholds with x values of 0.1 to 2.0 ng/ml. RESULTS: Median patient age was 65 years (IQR 60-71) and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 6-9). Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease was present in 80% of cases. Tumors were radiologically staged as T1c-T2c in 522 of the 596 patients (88%) and as T3a/b in 74 (12.4%). Baseline median prostate specific antigen was 7.80 ng/ml (IQR 5.96-10.45) in failed cases and 6.77 ng/ml (IQR 2.65-9.71) in cases without failure. Optimal performance according to the Youden index to indicate the most appropriate nadir + x at all analyzed time points at 3-month intervals showed that nadir + 1.0 ng/ml would have 27.3% to 100% sensitivity and 39.4% to 85.6% specificity depending on the time of evaluation in the first 3 years. Nadir + 1.5 ng/ml showed 18.2% to 100% sensitivity and 60.6% to 91.8% specificity with nadir + 2.0 ng/ml leading to similar sensitivity and specificity ranges. Nadir + 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and nadir + 1.5 ng/ml at 24 and 36 months had 100% sensitivity and 96.1% to 100% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Following focal high intensity focused ultrasound a prostate specific antigen nadir of 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and 1.5 ng/ml at 24 to 36 months might be used to triage men requiring magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. These data need prospective validation.

Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy to Transperineal Template Mapping Biopsies Stratified by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score in the PROMIS Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the performance of transrectal ultrasound guided systematic and transperineal template mapping biopsies with a 5 mm sampling frame stratified by the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert score in the PROMIS (Prostate MR Imaging Study). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biopsy naïve men due to undergo prostate biopsy for elevated prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and transperineal template mapping and transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsies, which were performed and reported while blinded to other test results. Clinically significant prostate cancer was primarily defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater, or a maximum cancer core length of 6 mm or more of any grade. It was secondarily defined as Gleason 3 + 4 or greater, or a maximum cancer core length of 4 mm or more of any grade. RESULTS: In 41 months 740 men were recruited at a total of 11 centers, of whom 576 underwent all 3 tests. Eight of the 150 men (5.1%) with a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score of 1-2 had any Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy. Of the 75 men in whom transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy showed Gleason 3 + 3 of any maximum cancer core length 61 (81%) had Gleason 3 + 4, 8 (11%) had Gleason 4 + 3 and 0 (0%) had Gleason 4 + 5 or greater disease. For definition 1 (clinically significant prostate cancer) transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy sensitivity remained stable and low across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert scores of 35% to 52%. For definition 2 (clinically significant prostate cancer and any cancer) sensitivity increased with higher multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. The negative predictive value varied due to varying disease prevalence but for all cancer thresholds it declined with increasing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert scores 1-2 transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy revealed Gleason 3 + 4 disease in only 1 of 20 men. Further, for any clinically significant prostate cancer definition transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy had poor sensitivity and variable but a low negative predictive value across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. Men who undergo transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy without targeting in the setting of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score of 3 to 5 should be advised to undergo repeat (targeted) biopsy.

Simulation in Urological Training and Education (SIMULATE): Protocol and curriculum development of the first multicentre international randomized controlled trial assessing the transferability of simulation-based surgical training.

OBJECTIVES: To report the study protocol for the first international multicentre randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of simulation-based surgical training and the development process for an evidence-based training curriculum, to be delivered as an educational intervention. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This prospective, international, multicentre randomized controlled clinical and educational trial will recruit urology surgical trainees who must not have performed ≥10 of the selected index procedure, ureterorenoscopy (URS). Participants will be randomized to simulation-based training (SBT) or non-simulation-based training (NSBT), the latter of which is the current sole standard of training globally. The primary outcome is the number of procedures required to achieve proficiency, where proficiency is defined as achieving a learning curve plateau of 28 or more on an Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) assessment scale, for three consecutive operations, without any complications. All participants will be followed up either until they complete 25 procedures or for 18 months. Development of the URS SBT curriculum took place through a two-round Delphi process. RESULTS: A total of 47 respondents, consisting of trainees (n = 24) with URS experience and urolithiasis specialists (n = 23), participated in round 1 of the Delphi process. Specialists (n = 10) finalized the content of the curriculum in round 2. The developed interventional curriculum consists of initial theoretic knowledge through didactic lectures followed by select tasks and cases on the URO-Mentor (Simbionix, Lod, Israel) VR Simulator, Uro-Scopic Trainer (Limbs & Things, Bristol, UK) and Scope Trainer (Mediskills, Manchester, UK) models for both semi-rigid and flexible URS. Respondents also selected relevant non-technical skills scenarios and cadaveric simulation tasks as additional components, with delivery subject to local availability. CONCLUSIONS: SIMULATE is the first multicentre trial investigating the effect and transferability of supplementary SBT on operating performance and patient outcomes. An evidence-based training curriculum is presented, developed with expert and trainee input. Participants will be followed and the primary outcome, number of procedures required to proficiency, will be reported alongside key clinical secondary outcomes, (ISCRTN 12260261).

Evaluation of functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) procedure in men with primary localized, non-metastatic prostate cancer: results from the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry.

OBJECTIVES: To assess change in functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment compared with outcomes after one focal HIFU treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre study (2005-2016), 821 men underwent focal HIFU for localized non-metastatic prostate cancer. The patient-reported outcome measures of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage and erectile function (EF) score were prospectively collected for up to 3 years. To be included in the study, completion of at least one follow-up questionnaire was required. The primary outcome was comparison of change in functional outcomes between baseline and follow-up after one focal HIFU procedure vs after a second focal HIFU procedure, using IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 821 men, 654 underwent one focal HIFU procedure and 167 underwent a second focal HIFU procedure. A total of 355 (54.3%) men undergoing one focal HIFU procedure and 65 (38.9%) with a second focal HIFU procedure returned follow-up questionnaires, respectively. The mean age and prostate-specific antigen level were 66.4 and 65.6 years, and 7.9 and 8.4 ng/mL, respectively. After one focal HIFU treatment, the mean change in IPSS was -0.03 (P = 0.02) and in IIEF (EF score) it was -0.4 (P = 0.02) at 1-2 years, with no subsequent decline. Absolute rates of erectile dysfunction increased from 9.9% to 20.8% (P = 0.08), leak-free continence decreased from 77.9% to 72.8% (P = 0.06) and pad-free continence from 98.6% to 94.8% (P = 0.07) at 1-2 years, respectively. IPSS prior to second focal HIFU treatment compared to baseline IPSS prior to first focal HIFU treatment was lower by -1.3 (P = 0.02), but mean IPSS change was +1.4 at 1-2 years (P = 0.03) and +1.2 at 2-3 years (P = 0.003) after the second focal HIFU treatment. The mean change in EF score after the second focal HIFU treatment was -0.2 at 1-2 years (P = 0.60) and -0.5 at 2-3 years (P = 0.10), with 17.8% and 6.2% of men with new erectile dysfunction. The rate of new pad use was 1.8% at 1-2 years and 2.6% at 2-3 years. CONCLUSION: A second focal HIFU procedure causes minor detrimental effects on urinary function and EF. These data can be used to counsel patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer prior to considering HIFU therapy.

Likert vs PI-RADS v2: a comparison of two radiological scoring systems for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical validity and utility of Likert assessment and the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 in the detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 489 pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) scans in consecutive patients were subject to prospective paired reporting using both Likert and PI-RADS v2 by expert uro-radiologists. Patients were offered biopsy for any Likert or PI-RADS score ≥4 or a score of 3 with PSA density ≥0.12 ng/mL/mL. Utility was evaluated in terms of proportion biopsied, and proportion of clinically significant and insignificant cancer detected (both overall and on a 'per score' basis). In those patients biopsied, the overall accuracy of each system was assessed by calculating total and partial area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The primary threshold of significance was Gleason ≥3 + 4. Secondary thresholds of Gleason ≥4 + 3, Ahmed/UCL1 (Gleason ≥4 + 3 or maximum cancer core length [CCL] ≥6 or total CCL≥6) and Ahmed/UCL2 (Gleason ≥3 + 4 or maximum CCL ≥4 or total CCL ≥6) were also used. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 66 (60-72) years and the median (IQR) prostate-specific antigen level was 7 (5-10) ng/mL. A similar proportion of men met the biopsy threshold and underwent biopsy in both groups (83.8% [Likert] vs 84.8% [PI-RADS v2]; P = 0.704). The Likert system predicted more clinically significant cancers than PI-RADS across all disease thresholds. Rates of insignificant cancers were comparable in each group. ROC analysis of biopsied patients showed that, although both scoring systems performed well as predictors of significant cancer, Likert scoring was superior to PI-RADS v2, exhibiting higher total and partial areas under the ROC curve. CONCLUSIONS: Both scoring systems demonstrated good diagnostic performance, with similar rates of decision to biopsy. Overall, Likert was superior by all definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer. It has the advantages of being flexible, intuitive and allowing inclusion of clinical data. However, its use should only be considered once radiologists have developed sufficient experience in reporting prostate mpMRI.