Organoid cultures derived from patients with advanced prostate cancer.

The lack of in vitro prostate cancer models that recapitulate the diversity of human prostate cancer has hampered progress in understanding disease pathogenesis and therapy response. Using a 3D organoid system, we report success in long-term culture of prostate cancer from biopsy specimens and circulating tumor cells. The first seven fully characterized organoid lines recapitulate the molecular diversity of prostate cancer subtypes, including TMPRSS2-ERG fusion, SPOP mutation, SPINK1 overexpression, and CHD1 loss. Whole-exome sequencing shows a low mutational burden, consistent with genomics studies, but with mutations in FOXA1 and PIK3R1, as well as in DNA repair and chromatin modifier pathways that have been reported in advanced disease. Loss of p53 and RB tumor suppressor pathway function are the most common feature shared across the organoid lines. The methodology described here should enable the generation of a large repertoire of patient-derived prostate cancer lines amenable to genetic and pharmacologic studies.

Do Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors Increase the Risk of Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy?

PURPOSE: There have been conflicting studies on the association between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) use and biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to determine whether PDE5i drug exposure after RP increases the risk of BCR in patients undergoing RP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional database of prostate cancer patients treated between January 2009 and December 2020 was reviewed. BCR was defined as 2 PSA measurements greater than 0.1 ng/mL. PDE5i exposure was defined using a 0 to 3 scale, with 0 representing never use, 1 sometimes use, 2 regularly use, and 3 routinely use. The risk of BCR with any PDE5i exposure, the quantity of exposure, and the duration of PDE5i exposure were assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The sample size included 4630 patients to be analyzed, with 776 patients having BCR. The median follow-up for patients without BCR was 27 (IQR 12, 49) months. Eighty-nine percent reported taking a PDE5i at any time during the first 12 months after RP, and 60% reported doing so for 6 or more months during the year after RP. There was no evidence of an increase in the risk of BCR associated with any PDE5i use (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.84, 1.31, P = .7) or duration of PDE5i use in the first year (HR 0.98 per 1 month duration, 95% CI 0.96, 1.00, P = .055). Baseline oncologic risk was lower in patients using PDE5i, but differences between groups were small, suggesting that residual confounding is unlikely to obscure any causal association with BCR. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription of PDE5i to men after RP can be based exclusively on quality of life considerations. Patients receiving PDE5is can be reassured that their use does not increase the risk of BCR.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 3.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussions for the 2024 update to the guidelines with regard to initial risk stratification, initial management of very-low-risk disease, and the treatment of nonmetastatic recurrence.

The oncologic risk of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic cores in patients treated with radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy (MRI-biopsy) detects high-Grade Group (GG) prostate cancers not identified by systematic biopsy (S-biopsy). However, questions have been raised whether cancers detected by MRI-biopsy and S-biopsy, grade-for-grade, are of equivalent oncologic risk. The authors evaluated the relative oncologic risk of GG diagnosed by S-biopsy and MRI-biopsy. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of all patients who had both MRI-biopsy and S-biopsy and underwent with prostatectomy (2014-2022) at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Three logistic regression models were used with adverse pathology as the primary outcome (primary pattern 4, any pattern 5, seminal vesicle invasion, or lymph node involvement). The first model included the presurgery prostate-specific antigen level, the number of positive and negative S-biopsy cores, S-biopsy GG, and MRI-biopsy GG. The second model excluded MRI-biopsy GG to obtain the average risk based on S-biopsy GG. The third model excluded S-biopsy GG to obtain the risk based on MRI-biopsy GG. A secondary analysis using Cox regression evaluated the 12-month risk of biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: In total, 991 patients were identified, including 359 (36%) who had adverse pathology. MRI-biopsy GG influenced oncologic risk compared with S-biopsy GG alone (p < .001). However, if grade was discordant between biopsies, then the risk was intermediate between grades. For example, the average risk of advanced pathology for patients who had GG2 and GG3 on S-biopsy was 19% and 66%, respectively, but the average risk was 47% for patients who had GG2 on S-biopsy and patients who had GG3 on MRI-biopsy. The equivalent estimates for 12-month biochemical recurrence were 5.8%, 15%, and 10%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings cast doubt on the practice of defining risk group based on the highest GG. Because treatment algorithms depend fundamentally on GG, further research is urgently required to assess the oncologic risk of prostate tumors depending on detection technique. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to help diagnose prostate cancer can help identify more high-grade cancers than using a systematic template biopsy alone. However, we do not know if high-grade cancers diagnosed with the help of an MRI are as dangerous to the patient as high-grade cancers diagnosed with a systematic biopsy. We examined all of our patients who had an MRI biopsy and a systematic biopsy and then had their prostates removed to find out if these patients had risk factors and signs of aggressive cancer (cancer that spread outside the prostate or was very high grade). We found that, if there was a difference in grade between the systematic biopsy and the MRI-targeted biopsy, the risk of aggressive cancer was between the two grades.

Comprehensive review of the use of hydrogel spacers prior to radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive narrative review of the published data on the impact of hydrogel spacers on rectal dosimetry and toxicity and to outline the practicalities of inserting hydrogel spacers. RESULTS: A growing body of evidence suggests that the administration of hydrogel spacers is safe and is associated with limited peri-operative morbidity. The impact on rectal dosimetry has been clearly established and use of hydrogel spacers is associated with reduced rectal morbidity. These results have been corroborated by several Phase II and III clinical trials and subsequent meta-analysis. There are several areas for future research, including the role of hydrogel spacers in prostate stereotactic beam radiotherapy and post-radiotherapy local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrogel spacers provide a low-morbidity method to potential reduce rectal toxicity after radiation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Data outlining sexual function and oncological outcomes are limited to date. Future studies, currently being conducted, may provide further clarification of the role of hydrogel spacers in prostate cancer management.

Prostate Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.

Predictive value of kallikrein forms and ß-microseminoprotein in blood from patients with evidence of detectable levels of PSA after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: To determine whether ß-microseminoprotein or any of the kallikrein forms in blood-free, total or intact PSA or total hK2-predict metastasis in patients with evidence of detectable levels of PSA in blood after radical prostatectomy. METHOD: We determined marker concentrations in blood from 173 men treated with radical prostatectomy and evidence of detectable levels of PSA in the blood (PSA ≥ 0.05) after surgery between 2014 and 2015 and at least 1 year after any adjuvant therapy. We used Cox regression to determine whether any marker was associated with metastasis using both univariate and multivariable models that included standard clinical predictors. RESULTS: Overall, 42 patients had metastasis, with a median follow-up of 67 months among patients without an event. The levels of intact and free PSA and free-to-total PSA ratio were significantly associated with metastasis. Discrimination was highest for free PSA (c-index: 0.645) and free-to-total PSA ratio (0.625). Only free-to-total PSA ratio remained associated with overall metastasis (either regional or distant) after including standard clinical predictors (p = 0.025) and increased discrimination from 0.686 to 0.697. Similar results were found using distant metastasis as an outcome (p = 0.011; c-index increased from 0.658 to 0.723). CONCLUSION: Our results provide evidence that free-to-total PSA ratio can risk stratifying patients with evidence of detectable levels of PSA in blood after RP. Further research is warranted on the biology of prostate cancer markers in patients with evidence of detectable levels of PSA in blood after radical prostatectomy. Our findings on the free-to-total ratio for predicting adverse oncologic outcomes need to be validated in other cohorts.

Active surveillance should be considered for select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer must balance patient preferences, oncologic risk, and preservation of sexual, urinary and bowel function. While Active Surveillance (AS) is the recommended option for men with Grade Group 1 (Gleason Score 3 + 3 = 6) prostate cancer without other intermediate-risk features, men with Grade Group 2 (Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7) are typically recommended active treatment. For select patients, AS can be a possible initial management strategy for men with Grade Group 2. Herein, we review current urology guidelines and the urologic literature regarding recommendations and evidence for AS for this patient group. MAIN BODY: AS benefits men with prostate cancer by maintaining their current quality of life and avoiding treatment side effects. AS protocols with close follow up always allow for an option to change course and pursue curative treatment. All the major guideline organizations now include Grade Group 2 disease with slightly differing definitions of eligibility based on risk using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, clinical stage, and other factors. Selected men with Grade Group 2 on AS have similar rates of deferred treatment and metastasis to men with Grade Group 1 on AS. There is a growing body of evidence from randomized controlled trials, large observational (prospective and retrospective) cohorts that confirm the oncologic safety of AS for these men. While some men will inevitably conclude AS at some point due to clinical reclassification with biopsy or imaging, some men may be able to stay on AS until transition to watchful waiting (WW). Magnetic resonance imaging is an important tool to confirm AS eligibility, to monitor progression and guide prostate biopsy. CONCLUSION: AS is a viable initial management option for well-informed and select men with Grade Group 2 prostate cancer, low volume of pattern 4, and no other adverse clinicopathologic findings following a well-defined monitoring protocol. In the modern era of AS, urologists have tools at their disposal to better stage patients at initial diagnosis, risk stratify patients, and gain information on the biologic potential of a patient's prostate cancer.

Have urinary function outcomes after radical prostatectomy improved over the past decade?

BACKGROUND: Changes in surgical technique and postoperative care that target improvements in functional outcomes are widespread in the literature. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one such procedure that has seen multiple advances over the past decade. The objective of this study was to leverage RP as an index case to determine whether practice changes over time produced observable improvements in patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: This study analyzed patients undergoing RP by experienced surgeons at a tertiary care center with prospectively maintained patient-reported outcome data from 2008 to 2019. Four patient-reported urinary function outcomes at 6 and 12 months after RP were defined with a validated instrument: good urinary function (domain score ≥ 17), no incontinence (0 pads per day), social continence (≤1 pad per day), and severe incontinence (≥3 pads per day). Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated changes in outcomes based on the surgical date. RESULTS: Among 3945 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, excellent urinary outcomes were reported throughout the decade but without consistent observable improvements over time. Specifically, there were no improvements in good urinary function at 12 months (P = .087) based on the surgical date, and there were countervailing effects on no incontinence (worsening; P = .005) versus severe incontinence (improving; P = .003). Neither approach (open, laparoscopic, or robotic), nor nerve sparing, nor membranous urethral length mediated changes in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In a decade with multiple advances in surgical and postoperative care, there was evidence of improvements in severe incontinence, but no measurable improvements across 3 other urinary outcomes. Although worsening disease factors could contribute to the stable observed outcomes, a more systematic approach to evaluating techniques and implementing patient selection and postoperative care advances is needed. LAY SUMMARY: Although there have been advances in radical prostatectomy over the past decade, consistent observable improvements in postoperative incontinence were not reported by patients. To improve urinary function outcomes beyond the current high standard, the approach to studying innovations in surgical technique needs to be changed, and further development of other aspects of prostatectomy care is needed.

Independent validation of a pre-specified four-kallikrein marker model for prediction of adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Accurate markers for prostate cancer (PC) risk stratification could aid decision-making for initial management strategies. The 4Kscore has an undefined role in predicting outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: We included 1476 patients with 4Kscore measured prior to RP at two institutions. The 4Kscore was assessed for prediction of adverse pathology at RP and biochemical recurrence (BCR) relative to a clinical model. We pre-specified that all analyses would be assessed in biopsy Grade Group 1 (GG1) or 2 (GG2) PC patients, separately. RESULTS: The 4Kscore increased discrimination for adverse pathology in all patients (delta area under the receiver operative curve (AUC) 0.009, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.002, 0.016; clinical model AUC 0.767), driven by GG1 (delta AUC 0.040, 95% CI 0.006, 0.073) rather than GG2 patients (delta AUC 0.005, 95% CI -0.012, 0.021). Adding 4Kscore improved prediction of BCR in all patients (delta C-index 0.014, 95% CI 0.007, 0.021; preop-BCR nomogram C-index 0.738), again with larger changes in GG1 than in GG2. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates prior investigations on the use of 4Kscore in men with biopsy-confirmed PC. Men with GG1 PC and a high 4Kscore may benefit from additional testing to guide treatment selection. Further research is warranted regarding the value of the 4Kscore in men with biopsy GG2 PC.

De Novo Urinary Storage Symptoms Are Common after Radical Prostatectomy: Incidence, Natural History and Predictors.

PURPOSE: After radical prostatectomy (RP), clinical complaints of new onset storage symptoms may be related to anastomotic strictures or may accommodate for stress urinary incontinence; however, a subgroup of men will experience de novo storage symptoms in the absence of stricture or stress urinary incontinence. As therapies for overactive bladder have improved, we sought to assess the prevalence, natural history and risk factors of de novo storage dysfunction in continent men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed urinary symptom questionnaires completed by patients who were continent prior to RP and did not have postoperative anastomotic strictures at our institution from 2002 to 2019. De novo storage dysfunction, assessed as new onset or worsening urgency or frequency, was assessed at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after RP, and association between it and patient and preoperative factors was determined. RESULTS: A total of 2,619 patients were included in the final analysis. An initial 34% of patients reported de novo storage symptoms at 6 months, which decreased to 26% at later followup. We found evidence that minimally invasive surgery and nonWhite race were associated with reporting worsening symptoms. The association between postoperative hematoma and worsening symptoms was less conclusive but was of clear clinical relevance (OR 3.15; 95% CI 1.04, 9.54; p=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of RP patients experience de novo storage symptoms. Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery are at higher risk. At-risk patients should be counseled on the incidence of de novo storage symptoms and offered early treatment per overactive bladder guidelines.

Oncologic Outcomes of Total Length Gleason Pattern 4 on Biopsy in Men with Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Gleason Score 7 prostate cancer comprises a wide spectrum of disease risk, and precise substratification is paramount. Our group previously demonstrated that the total length of Gleason pattern (GP) 4 is a better predictor than %GP4 for adverse pathological outcomes at radical prostatectomy. We aimed to determine the association of GP4 length on prostate biopsy with post-prostatectomy oncologic outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared 4 GP4 quantification methods-including maximum %GP4 in any single core, overall %GP4, total length GP4 (mm) across all cores and length GP4 (mm) in the highest volume core-for prediction of biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 457 men with grade group 2 prostate cancer on biopsy subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy. The 3-year biochemical recurrence-free survival probability was 85% (95% CI 81-88). On multivariable analysis, all 4 GP4 quantification methods were associated with biochemical recurrence-maximum %GP4 (HR=1.30; 95% CI 1.07-1.59; p=0.009), overall %GP4 (HR=1.61; 95% CI 1.21-2.15; p=0.001), total length GP4 (HR=2.48; 95% CI 1.36-4.52; p=0.003) and length GP4 in highest core (HR=1.32; 95% CI 1.11-1.57; p=0.001). However, we were unable to identify differences between methods of quantification with a relatively low event rate. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support further studies on GP4 quantification in addition to the ratio of GP3 and GP4 to classify prostate cancer risk. Research should also be conducted on whether GP4 quantification could provide a surrogate endpoint for disease progression for trials in active surveillance.

Association of Family History of Cancer with Clinical and Pathological Outcomes for Prostate Cancer Patients on Active Surveillance.

PURPOSE: The impact of germline mutations associated with hereditary cancer syndromes in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is poorly defined. We examined the association between family history of prostate cancer (FHP) or family history of cancer (FHC) and risk of progression or adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients on AS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients on AS at a single tertiary-care center between 2000-2019 were categorized by family history. Disease progression was defined as an increase in Gleason grade on biopsy. Adverse pathology was defined as upgrading/upstaging at RP. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess association between family history and time to progression or adverse pathology, respectively. RESULTS: Among 3,211 evaluable patients, 669 (21%) had FHP, 34 (1%) had FHC and 95 (3%) had both; 753 progressed on AS and 481 underwent RP. FHP was associated with increased risk of progression (HR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.55; p=0.002) but FHC (HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30-1.50; p=0.3) or family history of both (HR 1.22; 95% CI, 0.81-1.85; p=0.3) were not. FHP, FHC or both were not associated with adverse pathology at RP (p >0.4). CONCLUSIONS: While FHP was associated with an increased risk of progression on AS, wide confidence intervals render this outcome of unclear clinical significance. FHC was not associated with risk of progression on AS. In the absence of known genetically defined hereditary cancer syndrome, we suggest FHP and/or FHC should not be used as a sole trigger to preclude patients from enrolling on AS.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline. Part III: Principles of Radiation and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part III of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of radiation and offering several future directions of further relevant study in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts I and II for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of active surveillance and surgery and follow-up (Part II). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding management of patients using radiation therapy as well as important future directions of research are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part I: Introduction, Risk Assessment, Staging, and Risk-Based Management.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part I of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management in patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer. Please refer to Parts II and III for discussion of principles of active surveillance, surgery and follow-up (Part II), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, Part II: Principles of Active Surveillance, Principles of Surgery, and Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein represents Part II of the three-part series dedicated to Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO Guideline, discussing principles of active surveillance and surgery as well as follow-up for patients after primary treatment. Please refer to Parts I and III for discussion of risk assessment, staging, and risk-based management (Part I), and principles of radiation and future directions (Part III). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. A research librarian conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodology team supplemented searches of electronic databases with the studies included in the prior AUA review and by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Panel created evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to aid clinicians in the management of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Statements regarding active surveillance, surgical management, and patient follow-up are detailed. CONCLUSION: This guideline aims to inform clinicians treating patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Continued research and publication of high-quality evidence from future trials will be essential to further improve care for these men.

Characterization of Symptoms after Radical Prostatectomy and Their Relation to Postoperative Complications.

PURPOSE: Many patients will experience symptoms in the initial days after radical prostatectomy (RP), but early patient-reported symptoms have not been well characterized. Our objective was to illustrate the pattern of symptoms experienced after RP and the relation of severe symptoms to postoperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2016, electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring began at our institution's ambulatory surgery center. We retrospectively reviewed patients treated with minimally invasive RP who were sent a daily questionnaire completed using a web interface until postoperative day 10. Severe symptoms automatically generate a "yellow alert," which messages the clinic, while very severe symptoms generate a "red alert," additionally prompting the patient to call. We summarized rates of moderate-to-very severe symptoms and fit local polynomial regressions. We compared rates of 30-day or 90-day complications (grade ≥2) based on the presence of alert symptoms. RESULTS: Of 2,266 men undergoing RP, 1,942 (86%) completed surveys. Among moderate-to-very severe symptom levels, pain (72%) and dyspnea (11%) were most common. Pain, nausea and dyspnea consistently decreased over time; fever and vomiting had a flat pattern. In patients experiencing red-alert symptoms, we observed a higher risk of 30-day complications, but rates were low and differences between groups were nonsignificant (2.9% vs 1.9%; difference 1.1%; 95% CI -1.3-3.5; p=0.3). Results were similar examining 90-day complications. CONCLUSIONS: While symptoms are common after RP, substantial improvements occur over the first 10 days. Severe or very severe symptoms conferred at most a small absolute increase in complication risk, which should be reassuring to patients and clinicians.

Clinical utility of subclassifying positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether subclassification of positive surgical margins (PSMs) increases predictive ability for biochemical recurrence (BCR) and aids clinical decision-making in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 2147 patients with pT2 and pT3a prostate cancer with detailed surgical margin parameters and BCR status. We compared a base model, a linear predictor calculated from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center postoperative nomogram (prostate-specific antigen, pathological tumour grade and stage), with the addition of surgical margin status to five additional models (base model plus surgical margin subclassifications) to evaluate enhancement in predictive accuracy. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to determine the clinical utility of parameters that enhanced predictive accuracy. RESULTS: Among 2147 men, 205 had PSMs, and 231 developed BCR. Discrimination for the base model with addition of surgical margin status was high (c-index = 0.801) and not meaningfully improved by adding surgical margin subclassification in the full cohort. In analyses considering only men with PSMs (N = 55 with BCR), adding surgical margin subclassification to the base model increased discrimination for total length of all PSMs - alone or with maximum Gleason grade at the margin (c-index improvement = 0.717 to 0.752 and 0.753, respectively). DCA demonstrated a modest benefit to clinical utility with the addition of these parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Specific subclassification parameters add predictive accuracy for BCR and may aid clinical utility in decision-making for patients with PSMs. These findings may be useful for patient counselling and future adjuvant therapy trial design.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and include management options for localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel meets annually to reevaluate and update their recommendations based on new clinical data and input from within NCCN Member Institutions and from external entities. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarizes much of the panel's discussions for the 4.2022 and 1.2023 updates to the guidelines regarding systemic therapy for metastatic prostate cancer.

Morbidity of salvage radical prostatectomy: limited impact of the minimally invasive approach.

PURPOSE: We aimed to report the morbidity profile of salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) after radiotherapy failure and assess the impact of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on postoperative complications and functional outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1985 and 2019, a total of 293 patients underwent SRP; 232 underwent open SRP; and 61 underwent laparoscopic SRP with or without robotic assistance. Complications were recorded and classified into standardized categories per the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (10%) experienced grade 3 complications within 30 days, 22 (9.5%) after open and 7 (11%) after MIS (p = 0.6). Between 30 and 90 days after surgery, 7.3% of patients in the open group and 10% in the MIS group had grade 3 complications (p = 0.5). The most common complication was bladder neck contracture (BNC), representing 40% of the 30-90 day complications. Within one year of SRP, 81 patients (31%, 95% CI 25%, 37%) developed BNC; we saw non-significant lower rates in MIS (25 vs 32%; p = 0.4). Functional outcomes were poor after SRP and showed no difference between open and MIS groups for urinary continence (16 vs 18%, p = 0.7) and erectile function (7 vs 13%, p = 0.4). 5 year cancer-specific survival and overall survival was 95% and 88% for the entire cohort, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our outcomes suggest poor functional recovery after SRP, regardless of the operative approach. Currently there is no evidence favoring the use of open or MIS approach. Further studies are required to ensure comparable outcomes between these approaches.