Predicting contralateral extraprostatic extension in unilateral high-risk prostate cancer: a multicentric external validation study.

PURPOSE: Accurate prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) is crucial for decision-making in radical prostatectomy (RP), especially in nerve-sparing strategies. Martini et al. introduced a three-tier algorithm for predicting contralateral EPE in unilateral high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of the study is to externally validate this model in a multicentric European cohort of patients. METHODS: The data from 208 unilateral high-risk PCa patients diagnosed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies, treated with RP between January 2016 and November 2021 at eight referral centers were collected. The evaluation of model performance involved measures such as discrimination (AUC), calibration, and decision-curve analysis (DCA) following TRIPOD guidelines. In addition, a comparison was made with two established multivariable logistic regression models predicting the risk of side specific EPE for assessment purposes. RESULTS: Overall, 38%, 48%, and 14% of patients were categorized as low, intermediate, and high-risk groups according to Martini et al.'s model, respectively. At final pathology, EPE on the contralateral prostatic lobe occurred in 6.3%, 12%, and 34% of patients in the respective risk groups. The algorithm demonstrated acceptable discrimination (AUC 0.68), comparable to other multivariable logistic regression models (p = 0.3), adequate calibration and the highest net benefit in DCA. The limitations include the modest sample size, retrospective design, and lack of central revision. CONCLUSION: Our findings endorse the algorithm's commendable performance, supporting its utility in guiding treatment decisions for unilateral high-risk PCa patients.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the treatment of bladder cancer: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (TRUST)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify laser settings and limits applied by experts during laser vaporization (vapBT) and laser en-bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) and to identify preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: After a focused literature search to identify relevant questions, we conducted a survey (57 questions) which was sent to laser experts. The expert selection was based on clinical experience and scientific contribution. Participants were asked for used laser types, typical laser settings during specific scenarios, and preventive measures applied during surgery. Settings for a maximum of 2 different lasers for each scenario were possible. Responses and settings were compared among the reported laser types. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 29 (79.3%) invited experts completed the survey. Thulium fiber laser (TFL) is the most common laser (57%), followed by Holmium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Ho:YAG) (48%), continuous wave (cw) Thulium:Yttrium-Aluminium-Garnet (Tm:YAG) (26%), and pulsed Tm:YAG (13%). Experts prefer ERBT (91.3%) to vapBT (8.7%); however, relevant limitations such as tumor size, number, and anatomical tumor location exist. Laser settings were generally comparable; however, we could find significant differences between the laser sources for lateral wall ERBT (p = 0.028) and standard ERBT (p = 0.033), with cwTm:YAG and pulsed Tm:YAG being operated in higher power modes when compared to TFL and Ho:YAG. Experts prefer long pulse modes for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL lasers. CONCLUSION: TFL seems to have replaced Ho:YAG and Tm:YAG. Most laser settings do not differ significantly among laser sources. For experts, continuous flow irrigation is the most commonly applied measure to reduce complications.

External validation and comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-based risk prediction models for prostate biopsy stratification.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a promising tool for risk assessment, potentially reducing the burden of unnecessary prostate biopsies. Risk prediction models that incorporate MRI data have gained attention, but their external validation and comparison are essential for guiding clinical practice. The aim is to externally validate and compare risk prediction models for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS: A cohort of 4606 patients across fifteen European tertiary referral centers were identified from a prospective maintained database between January 2016 and April 2023. Transrectal or transperineal image-fusion MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies for PI-RADS score of ≥ 3 or ≥ 2 depending on patient characteristics and physician preferences. Probabilities for csPCa, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥ 2, were calculated for each patients using eight models. Performance was characterized by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and net benefit. Subgroup analyses were performed across various clinically relevant subgroups. RESULTS: Overall, csPCa was detected in 2154 (47%) patients. The models exhibited satisfactory performance, demonstrating good discrimination (AUC ranging from 0.75 to 0.78, p < 0.001), adequate calibration, and high net benefit. The model described by Alberts showed the highest clinical utility for threshold probabilities between 10 and 20%. Subgroup analyses highlighted variations in models' performance, particularly when stratified according to PSA level, biopsy technique and PI-RADS version. CONCLUSIONS: We report a comprehensive external validation of risk prediction models for csPCa diagnosis in patients who underwent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies. The model by Alberts demonstrated superior clinical utility and should be favored when determining the need for a prostate biopsy.

The impact of prostate volume estimation on the risk-adapted biopsy decision based on prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging score.

PURPOSE: Utility of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd) for risk-stratification to avoid unnecessary biopsy remains unclear due to the lack of standardization of prostate volume estimation. We evaluated the impact of ellipsoidal formula using multiparametric magnetic resonance (MRI) and semi-automated segmentation using tridimensional ultrasound (3D-US) on prostate volume and PSAd estimations as well as the distribution of patients in a risk-adapted table of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS: In a prospectively maintained database of 4841 patients who underwent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies, 971 met inclusions criteria. Correlation of volume estimation was assessed by Kendall's correlation coefficient and graphically represented by scatter and Bland-Altman plots. Distribution of csPCa was presented using the Schoots risk-adapted table based on PSAd and PI-RADS score. The model was evaluated using discrimination, calibration plots and decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: Median prostate volume estimation using 3D-US was higher compared to MRI (49cc[IQR 37-68] vs 47cc[IQR 35-66], p < 0.001). Significant correlation between imaging modalities was observed (τ = 0.73[CI 0.7-0.75], p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plot emphasizes the differences in prostate volume estimation. Using the Schoots risk-adapted table, a high risk of csPCa was observed in PI-RADS 2 combined with high PSAd, and in all PI-RADS 4-5. The risk of csPCa was proportional to the PSAd for PI-RADS 3 patients. Good accuracy (AUC of 0.69 and 0.68 using 3D-US and MRI, respectively), adequate calibration and a higher net benefit when using 3D-US for probability thresholds above 25% on DCA. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate volume estimation with semi-automated segmentation using 3D-US should be preferred to the ellipsoidal formula (MRI) when evaluating PSAd and the risk of csPCa.

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

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

Thulium: YAG vs continuous-wave thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate: do potential advantages of thulium fiber lasers translate into relevant clinical differences?

PURPOSE: To compare endoscopic enucleation of the prostate using a thulium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Tm:YAG) laser and a super-pulsed thulium fiber laser set in continuous-wave (CW) mode, and to evaluate whether theoretical advantages of thulium fiber lasers, related to their shorter wavelength, translate into relevant clinical differences. METHODS: In total, 110 patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia were randomized to undergo either thulium:YAG laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) or CW thulium fiber laser enucleation of the prostate (CW-ThuFLEP). Intraoperative and postoperative variables and complications were compared. Micturition improvement was assessed at 3-month follow-up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), post-void residual urine (PVR) and maximum flow rate (Qmax). Erectile function was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5). RESULTS: No significant differences between the ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP groups were found in terms of operative time (70.69 vs 72.41 min), enucleation time (50.23 vs 53.33 min), enucleated tissue weight (40.2 vs 41.9 g), enucleation efficiency (0.80 vs 0.79 g/min), catheterization time (2.45 vs 2.57 days), hospital stay (2.82 vs 2.95 days) and hemoglobin drop (1.05 vs 1.27 g/dl). At 3-month follow-up, no significant differences were found in IPSS (5.09 vs 5.81), Qmax (26.51 vs 27.13 ml/s), PVR (25.22 vs 23.81 ml) and IIEF-5 (14.01 vs 14.54). CONCLUSION: ThuLEP and CW-ThuFLEP were equivalent in relieving patients from LUTS and improving micturition. Theoretical advantages of the TFL, such as shallower penetration depth and improved vaporization capacity, did not translate into relevant perioperative outcomes or clinical differences.

Optimizing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and prostate cancer grading accuracy.

PURPOSE: To assess the most efficient biopsy method to improve International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group accuracy with final pathology of the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen in the era of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-driven pathway. METHODS: A total of 753 patients diagnosed by transrectal MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies (namely "standard method"), treated by RP, between 2016 and 2021 were evaluated. Biopsy methods included MRI-targeted biopsy, side-specific systematic biopsies relative to index MRI lesion and combination of both. Number of MRI-targeted biopsy cores and positive cores needed per index MRI lesion were assessed. Multivariable analysis was performed to analyze predictive factors of upgrading using MRI targeted and ipsilateral systematic biopsies method. RESULTS: Overall, ISUP grade group accuracy varied among biopsy methods with upgrading rate of 35%, 49%, 27%, and 24% for MRI targeted, systematic, MRI targeted and ipsilateral systematic biopsies and standard methods, respectively (p < 0.001). A minimum of two positive MRI-targeted biopsies cores per index MRI lesion were required when testing MRI targeted and ipsilateral systematic biopsies method to reach equivalent accuracy compared to standard method. Omitting contralateral systematic biopsies spared an average of 5.9 cores per patient. At multivariable analysis, only the number of positive MRI-targeted biopsy cores per index MRI lesion was predictive of upgrading. CONCLUSION: MRI targeted and ipsilateral systematic biopsies allowed an accurate definition of ISUP grade group and appears to be an interesting alternative when compared with standard method, reducing total number of biopsy cores needed.

Experts' recommendations in laser use for the endoscopic treatment of prostate hypertrophy: a comprehensive guide by the European Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT) and Training-Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group.

PURPOSE: To identify expert laser settings for BPH treatment and evaluate the application of preventive measures to reduce complications. METHODS: A survey was conducted after narrative literature research to identify relevant questions regarding laser use for BPH treatment (59 questions). Experts were asked for laser settings during specific clinical scenarios. Settings were compared for the reported laser types, and common settings and preventive measures were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-two experts completed the survey with a mean filling time of 12.9 min. Ho:YAG, Thulium fiber laser (TFL), continuous wave (cw) Tm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers are used by 73% (16/22), 50% (11/22), 23% (5/22), 13.6% (3/22) and 9.1% (2/22) of experts, respectively. All experts use anatomical enucleation of the prostate (EEP), preferentially in one- or two-lobe technique. Laser settings differ significantly between laser types, with median laser power for apical/main gland EEP of 75/94 W, 60/60 W, 100/100 W, 100/100 W, and 80/80 W for Ho:YAG, TFL, cwTm:YAG, pulsed Tm:YAG and Greenlight™ lasers, respectively (p = 0.02 and p = 0.005). However, power settings within the same laser source are similar. Pulse shapes for main gland EEP significantly differ between lasers with long and pulse shape modified (e.g., Moses, Virtual Basket) modes preferred for Ho:YAG and short pulse modes for TFL (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Ho:YAG lasers no longer seem to be the mainstay of EEP. TFL lasers are generally used in pulsed mode though clinical applicability for quasi-continuous settings has recently been demonstrated. One and two-lobe techniques are beneficial regarding operative time and are used by most experts.

Expanding inclusion criteria for active surveillance in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a machine learning approach.

PURPOSE: To develop new selection criteria for active surveillance (AS) in intermediate-risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS: Retrospective study including patients from 14 referral centers who underwent pre-biopsy mpMRI, image-guided biopsies and radical prostatectomy. The cohort included biopsy-naive IR PCa patients who met the following inclusion criteria: Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 1-2, PSA < 20 ng/mL, and cT1-cT2 tumors. We relied on a recursive machine learning partitioning algorithm developed to predict adverse pathological features (i.e., ≥ pT3a and/or pN + and/or GGG ≥ 3). RESULTS: A total of 594 patients with IR PCa were included, of whom 220 (37%) had adverse features. PI-RADS score (weight:0.726), PSA density (weight:0.158), and clinical T stage (weight:0.116) were selected as the most informative risk factors to classify patients according to their risk of adverse features, leading to the creation of five risk clusters. The adverse feature rates for cluster #1 (PI-RADS ≤ 3 and PSA density < 0.15), cluster #2 (PI-RADS 4 and PSA density < 0.15), cluster #3 (PI-RADS 1-4 and PSA density ≥ 0.15), cluster #4 (normal DRE and PI-RADS 5), and cluster #5 (abnormal DRE and PI-RADS 5) were 11.8, 27.9, 37.3, 42.7, and 65.1%, respectively. Compared with the current inclusion criteria, extending the AS criteria to clusters #1 + #2 or #1 + #2 + #3 would increase the number of eligible patients (+ 60 and + 253%, respectively) without increasing the risk of adverse pathological features. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed model has the potential to expand the number of patients eligible for AS without compromising oncologic outcomes. Prospective validation is warranted.

First case-series of robot-assisted pudendal nerve release: technique and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Pudendal Nerve Entrapment (PNE) may determine chronic pelvic pain associated with symptoms related to its innervation area. This study aimed to present the technique and report the outcomes of the first series of robot-assisted pudendal nerve release (RPNR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: 32 patients, who were treated with RPNR in our centre between January 2016 and July 2021, were recruited. Following the medial umbilical ligament identification, the space between this ligament and the ipsilateral external iliac pedicle is progressively dissected to identify the obturator nerve. The dissection medial to this nerve identifies the obturator vein and the arcus tendinous of the levator ani, which is cranially inserted into the ischial spine. Following the cold incision of the coccygeous muscle at the level of the spine, the sacrospinous ligament is identified and incised. The pudendal trunk (vessels and nerve) is visualized, freed from the ischial spine and medially transposed. RESULTS: The Median duration of symptoms was 7 (5, 5-9) years. The median operative time was 74 (65-83) minutes. The median length of stay was 1 (1-2) days. There was only a minor complication. At 3 and 6 months after surgery, a statistically significant pain reduction has been encountered. Furthermore, the Pearson correlation coefficient reported a negative relationship between the duration of pain and the improvement in NPRS score, - 0.81 (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: RPNR is a safe and effective approach for the pain resolution caused by PNE. Timely nerve decompression is suggested to enhance outcomes.

Accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for Response Evaluation of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer following Neoadjuvant or Induction Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of a second FDG-PET/CT following neoadjuvant or induction chemotherapy (NAIC) prior to radical cystectomy for patients with localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). METHODS: Retrospective review of 62 consecutive patients with MIBC, that had a first FDG-PET/CT between April 2016 and September 2021. Patients then underwent NAIC, followed by a second FDG-PET/CT and radical cystectomy. Patients with no hypermetabolism in the bladder and lymph nodes on the second FDG-PET/CT were considered metabolic complete responders, while patients with no evidence of residual disease on histopathology were considered pathologic complete responders. The accuracy of the second FDG-PET/CT to distinguish complete responders from patients with residual disease was calculated, with histopathology as gold standard. RESULTS: Of 62 patients, 1 was lost to follow-up, 5 died before radical cystectomy, 5 had delay >2 months between the second FDG-PET/CT and radical cystectomy, and 6 did not undergo radical cystectomy and instead underwent alternative treatment. The study cohort comprised 45 patients, 39 males and 6 females, with an age of 66 ± 6 years. In comparison to histopathology, FDG-PET/CT provided (i) sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 42%, for the overall disease; (ii) sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 36%, for the primary tumor only; and (iii) sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 30%, for the lymph nodes only. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT has over 95% sensitivity for distinguishing complete responders from patients with residual disease. Thus, FDG-PET/CT can be used for early response evaluation following NAIC to identify patients that did not completely respond to chemotherapy and may require alternative treatment pathways.

A prospective multicenter randomized comparison between Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and Thulium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (ThuLEP).

PURPOSE: To compare intra and perioperative parameters between HoLEP and ThuLEP in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of the two procedures with a 12-month follow-up. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was performed on 236 consecutive patients who underwent ThuLEP (n = 115), or HoLEP (n = 121) in three different centers. Intra and perioperative parameters were analyzed: operative time, enucleated tissue weight, irrigation volume, blood loss, catheterization time, hospital stay and complications. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively with the international prostate symptom score (IPSS), the quality of life (QoL) score, post-void residual volume (PVR), PSA and maximum flow rate (Qmax). RESULTS: Preoperative variables in each study arm did not show any significant difference. Compared to HoLEP, ThuLEP showed similar operative time (63.69 vs 71.66 min, p = 0.245), enucleated tissue weight (48.84 vs 51.13 g, p = 0.321), catheterization time (1.9 vs 2.0 days, p = 0.450) and hospital stay (2.2 vs 2.8 days, p = 0.216), but resulted in less haemoglobin decrease (0.45 vs 2.77 g/dL, p = 0.005). HoLEP presented a significantly higher number of patients with postoperative acute urinary retention and stress incontinence. No significant differences were found in PSA, Qmax, PVR, IPSS and QoL score during follow-up. CONCLUSION: ThuLEP and HoLEP both relieved lower urinary tract symptoms equally, with high efficacy and safety. ThuLEP detemined reduced blood loss and early postoperative complications. Catheterization time, enucleated tissue, hospital stay, operative time and follow-up parameters did not show any significant difference.

Timing and delay of radical prostatectomy do not lead to adverse oncologic outcomes: results from a large European cohort at the times of COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The current COVID-19 pandemic is transforming our urologic practice and most urologic societies recommend to defer any surgical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) patients. It is unclear whether a delay between diagnosis and surgical management (i.e., surgical delay) may have a detrimental effect on oncologic outcomes of PCa patients. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of surgical delay on oncologic outcomes. METHODS: Data of 926 men undergoing radical prostatectomy across Europe for intermediate and high-risk PCa according to EAU classification were identified. Multivariable analysis using binary logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard model tested association between surgical delay and upgrading on final pathology, lymph-node invasion (LNI), pathological locally advanced disease (pT3-4 and/or pN1), need for adjuvant therapy, and biochemical recurrence. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate BCR-free survival after surgery as a function of surgical delay using a 3 month cut-off. RESULTS: Median follow-up and surgical delay were 26 months (IQR 10-40) and 3 months (IQR 2-5), respectively. We did not find any significant association between surgical delay and oncologic outcomes when adjusted to pre- and post-operative variables. The lack of such association was observed across EAU risk categories. CONCLUSION: Delay of several months did not appear to adversely impact oncologic results for intermediate and high-risk PCa, and support an attitude of deferring surgery in line with the current recommendation of urologic societies.

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate with Virtual Basket mode: faster and better control on bleeding.

BACKGROUND: To compare clinical intra and early postoperative outcomes between conventional Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate using the Virtual Basket tool (VB-HoLEP) to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: This prospective randomized study enrolled consecutive patients with BPH, who were assigned to undergo either HoLEP (n = 100), or VB-HoLEP (n = 100). All patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively, with particular attention to catheterization time, operative time, blood loss, irrigation volume and hospital stay. We also evaluated the patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery and assessed maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Quality of Life score (QOLS). RESULTS: No significant differences in preoperative parameters between patients in each study arm were found. Compared to HoLEP, VB-HoLEP resulted in less hemoglobin decrease (2.54 vs. 1.12 g/dl, P = 0.03) and reduced operative time (57.33 ± 29.71 vs. 42.99 ± 18.51 min, P = 0.04). HoLEP and VB-HoLEP detrmined similar catheterization time (2.2 vs. 1.9 days, P = 0.45), irrigation volume (33.3 vs. 31.7 l, P = 0.69), and hospital stay (2.8 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.21). During the 6-month follow-up no significant differences in IPSS, Qmax, PVR, and QOLS were demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP and VB-HoLEP are both efficient and safe procedures for relieving lower urinary tract symptoms. VB-HoLEP was statistically superior to HoLEP in blood loss and operative time. However, procedures did not differ significantly in catheterization time, hospital stay, and irrigation volume. No significant differences were demonstrated in QOLS, IPSS, Qmax and PVR throughout the 6-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72879639; date of registration: June 25th, 2015. Retrospectively registred.

Accuracy of elastic fusion biopsy in daily practice: Results of a multicenter study of 2115 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of Koelis fusion biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer in the everyday practice. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 2115 patients from 15 institutions in four European countries undergoing transrectal Koelis fusion biopsy from 2010 to 2017. A variable number of target (usually 2-4) and random cores (usually 10-14) were carried out, depending on the clinical case and institution habits. The overall and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates were assessed, evaluating the diagnostic role of additional random biopsies. The cancer detection rate was correlated to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging features and clinical variables. RESULTS: The mean number of targeted and random cores taken were 3.9 (standard deviation 2.1) and 10.5 (standard deviation 5.0), respectively. The cancer detection rate of Koelis biopsies was 58% for all cancers and 43% for clinically significant prostate cancer. The performance of additional, random cores improved the cancer detection rate of 13% for all cancers (P < 0.001) and 9% for clinically significant prostate cancer (P < 0.001). Prostate cancer was detected in 31%, 66% and 89% of patients with lesions scored as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Clinical stage and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score were predictors of prostate cancer detection in multivariate analyses. Prostate-specific antigen was associated with prostate cancer detection only for clinically significant prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Koelis fusion biopsy offers a good cancer detection rate, which is increased in patients with a high Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and clinical stage. The performance of additional, random cores seems unavoidable for correct sampling. In our experience, the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and clinical stage are predictors of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer detection; prostate-specific antigen is associated only with clinically significant prostate cancer detection, and a higher number of biopsy cores are not associated with a higher cancer detection rate.

Outcomes of lateral approach in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: insights from a single-surgeon experience.

In the era of robotic prostate surgery, various techniques have been developed to improve functional outcomes. Urinary continence has shown satisfactory results, but the preservation of lateral nerves to the periprostatic capsule is only achievable by sparing the pubovesical complex. This study aims to present the first cases of lateral-approach robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (LRRP) performed by a novice surgeon. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 70 prostate cancer patients who underwent LRRP between October 2019 and September 2021, analyzing the perioperative and functional outcomes. The median operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 102 (92-108) minutes and 150 (130-180) mL, respectively. Five minor postoperative complications were reported, and the median hospital stay was 2 (1-2) days. Eleven positive surgical margins occurred. Potency and urinary continence recovery were achieved in 59 (84%) and 66 (94%) patients, respectively, 12 months after surgery. Our analysis shows that LRRP is a safe and effective procedure for prostate cancer surgery. Continence and potency recovery required a short learning curve, with an acceptable recovery rate even in the initial cases.

Does Overgrading on Targeted Biopsy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-visible Lesions in Prostate Cancer Lead to Overtreatment?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Targeted biopsy of the index prostate cancer (PCa) lesion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is effective in reducing the risk of overdiagnosis of indolent PCa. However, it remains to be determined whether MRI-targeted biopsy can lead to a stage shift via overgrading of the index lesion by focusing only on the highest-grade component, and to a subsequent risk of overtreatment. Our aim was to assess whether overgrading on MRI-targeted biopsy may lead to overtreatment, using radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens as the reference standard. METHODS: Patients with clinically localized PCa who had positive MRI findings (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3) and Gleason grade group (GG) ≥2 disease detected on MRI-targeted biopsy were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database that records all RP procedures from eight referral centers. Biopsy grade was defined as the highest grade detected. Downgrading was defined as lower GG for the RP specimen than for MRI-targeted biopsy. Overtreatment was defined as downgrading to RP GG 1 for cases with GG ≥2 on biopsy, or to RP low-burden GG 2 for cases with GG ≥3 on biopsy. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We included 1020 consecutive biopsy-naïve patients with GG ≥2 PCa on MRI-targeted biopsy in the study. Pathological analysis of RP specimens showed downgrading in 178 patients (17%). The transperineal biopsy route was significantly associated with a lower risk of downgrading (odds ratio 0.364, 95% confidence interval 0.142-0.814; p = 0.022). Among 555 patients with GG 2 on targeted biopsy, only 18 (3.2%) were downgraded to GG 1 on RP. Among 465 patients with GG ≥3 on targeted biopsy, three (0.6%) were downgraded to GG 1 and seven were downgraded to low-burden GG 2 on RP. The overall risk of overtreatment due to targeted biopsy was 2.7% (28/1020). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our multicenter study revealed no strong evidence that targeted biopsy results could lead to a high risk of overtreatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the diagnosis pathway for prostate cancer, results for targeted biopsies guided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans lead to a negligible proportion of overtreatment.

Transperineal or Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Detection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A notable paradigm shift has emerged in the choice of prostate biopsy approach, with a transition from transrectal biopsy (TRBx) to transperineal biopsy (TPBx) driven by the lower risk of severe urinary tract infections. The impact of this change on detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) remains a subject of debate. Our aim was to compare the csPCa detection rate of TRBx and TPBx. METHODS: Patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies for clinically localized PCa at 15 European referral centers from 2016 to 2023 were included. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize selection biases. Logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 3949 patients who met the study criteria, 2187 underwent TRBx and 1762 underwent TPBx. PSM resulted in 1301 matched pairs for analysis. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. TPBx versus TRBx was associated with greater detection of csPCa, whether defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2 (51% vs 45%; OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.63; p = 0.001) or grade group ≥3 (29% vs 23%; OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.13-1.67; p = 0.001). Similar results were found when considering MRI-targeted biopsy alone and after stratifying patients according to tumor location, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score, and clinical features. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of centralized MRI review. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings bolster existing understanding of the additional advantages offered by TPBx. Further randomized trials to fully validate these findings are awaited. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared the rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsies in which the sample needle is passed through the perineum or the rectum. Our results suggest that the perineal approach is associated with better detection of aggressive prostate cancer.

The Added Value of Side-specific Systematic Biopsy in Patients Diagnosed by Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Systematic biopsy (SB) combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy is still recommended considering the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the added value in csPCa detection on side-specific SB relative to MRI lesion and to externally validate the Noujeim risk stratification model that predicts the risk of csPCa on distant SB cores relative to the index MRI lesion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Overall, 4841 consecutive patients diagnosed by MRI-targeted biopsy and SB for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥3 lesions were identified from a prospectively maintained database between January 2016 and April 2023 at 15 European referral centers. A total of 2387 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: McNemar's test was used to compare the csPCa detection rate between several biopsy strategies including MRI-targeted biopsy, side-specific SB, and a combination of both. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination using area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, the csPCa detection rate was 49%. Considering MRI-targeted biopsy as reference, the added values in terms of csPCa detection were 5.8% (relative increase of 13%), 4.2% (relative increase of 9.8%), and 2.8% (relative increase of 6.1%) for SB, ipsilateral SB, and contralateral SB, respectively. Only 35 patients (1.5%) exclusively had csPCa on contralateral SB (p < 0.001). Considering patients with csPCa on MRI-targeted biopsy and ipsilateral SB, the upgrading rate was 2% (20/961) using contralateral SB (p < 0.001). The Noujeim model exhibited modest performance (AUC of 0.63) when tested using our validation set. CONCLUSIONS: The added value of contralateral SB was negligible in terms of cancer detection and upgrading rates. The Noujeim model could be included in the decision-making process regarding the appropriate prostate biopsy strategy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the present study, we collected a set of patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. We found that biopsies taken at the opposite side of the MRI suspicious lesion have a negligible impact on cancer detection. We also validate a risk stratification model that predicts the risk of cancer on biopsies beyond 10 mm from the initial lesion, which could be used in daily practice to improve the personalization of the prostate biopsy.

Refining clinically relevant cut-offs of prostate specific antigen density for risk stratification in patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions.

BACKGROUND: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 lesions, identified through multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), present a clinical challenge due to their equivocal nature in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Aim of the study is to improve risk stratification of patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions and candidates for prostate biopsy. METHODS: A cohort of 4841 consecutive patients who underwent MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies between January 2016 and April 2023 were retrospectively identified from independent prospectively maintained database. Only patients who have PI-RADS 3 lesions were included in the final analysis. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify covariables associated with csPCa defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group ≥2. Performance of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and net benefit. Significant predictors were then selected for further exploration using a Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 790 patients had PI-RADS 3 lesions and 151 (19%) had csPCa. Significant associations were observed for age (OR: 1.1 [1.0-1.1]; p = 0.01) and PSA density (OR: 1643 [2717-41,997]; p < 0.01). The CHAID analysis identified PSAd as the sole significant factor influencing the decision tree. Cut-offs for PSAd were 0.13 ng/ml/cc (csPCa detection rate of 1% vs. 18%) for the two-nodes model and 0.09 ng/ml/cc and 0.16 ng/ml/cc for the three-nodes model (csPCa detection rate of 0.5% vs. 2% vs. 17%). CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with PI-RADS 3 lesions on prostate mpMRI and a PSAd below 0.13, especially below 0.09, prostate biopsy can be omitted, in order to avoid unnecessary biopsy and overdiagnosis of non-csPCa.