Multiparametric MRI is not sufficient for prostate cancer staging: A single institutional experience validated by a multi-institutional regional collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been increasingly utilized in prostate cancer (CaP) diagnosis and staging. While Level 1 data supports MRI utility in CaP diagnosis, there is less data on staging utility. We sought to evaluate the real-world accuracy of mpMRI in staging localized CaP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) for CaP in 2021 at our institution were identified. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of mpMRI in predicting pT2N0 organ confined disease , extracapsular extension , seminal vesicle invasion , lymph node involvement, and bladder neck invasion were evaluated. Associations between MRI accuracy and AUA risk stratification (AUA RS), MRI institution (MRI-I), MRI strength (1.5 vs. 3T) (MRI-S), and MRI timing (MRI-T) were assessed. These analyses were repeated using Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC) data. RESULTS: Institutional and community mpMRI CaP staging data demonstrated poor sensitivity (2.9%-49.2%% vs. 16.8%-24.4%), positive predictive value (40%-100% vs. 35.8%-68.2%), and negative predictive value (56.3%-94.3% vs. 68.4%-96.2%) in predicting surgical pathologic features - in contrast, specificity (89.1%-100% vs. 93.9%-98.6%) was adequate. mpMRI accuracy for extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement was significantly (p < 0.001) associated with AUA RS. There was no association between mpMRI accuracy and MRI-I, MRI-S, and MRI-T. CONCLUSION: Despite enthusiasm for its use, in a real-world setting, mpMRI appears to be a poor staging study for localized CaP and is unreliable as the sole means of staging patients prior to prostatectomy. mpMRI should be used cautiously as a staging tool for CaP, and should be interpreted considering individual patient risk strata.

Preventing Prostate Biopsy Complications: to Augment or to Swab?

OBJECTIVE: To use data from a large, prospectively- acquired regional collaborative database to compare the risk of infectious complications associated with three American Urologic Association- recommended antibiotic prophylaxis pathways, including culture-directed or augmented antibiotics, following prostate biopsy. METHODS: Data on prostate biopsies and outcomes were collected from the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative, a regional quality collaborative working to improve the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Patients were categorized as receiving one of three prophylaxis pathways: culture-directed, augmented, or provider-discretion. Infectious complications included fever, urinary tract infections or sepsis within one month of biopsy. Odds ratios of infectious complication by pathway were determined, and univariate and multivariate analyses of patient and biopsy characteristics were performed. RESULTS: 11,940 biopsies were included, 120 of which resulted in infectious outcomes. Of the total biopsies, 3246 used "culture-directed", 1446 used "augmented" and 7207 used "provider-discretion" prophylaxis. Compared to provider-discretion, the culture-directed pathway had 84% less chance of any infectious outcome (OR= 0.159, 95% CI = [0.074, 0.344], P < 0.001). There was no difference in infectious complications between augmented and provider-discretion pathways. CONCLUSIONS: The culture-directed pathway for transrectal prostate biopsy resulted in significantly fewer infectious complications compared to other prophylaxis strategies. Tailoring antibiotics addresses antibiotic-resistant bacteria and reduces future risk of resistance. These findings make a strong case for incorporating culture-directed antibiotic prophylaxis into clinical practice guidelines to reduce infection following prostate biopsies.

Concordance of confirmatory prostate biopsy in active surveillance with national guidelines: An analysis from the multi-institutional PURC cohort.

PURPOSE: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend confirmatory biopsy within 12 months of active surveillance (AS) enrollment. With <10 cores on initial biopsy, re-biopsy should occur within 6 months. Our objective was to determine if patients on AS within practices in the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC) receive guideline concordant confirmatory biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Within PURC, a prospective collaborative of diverse urology practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, we identified men enrolled in AS after first biopsy, analyzing time to re-biopsy and factors associated with various intervals of re-biopsy. RESULTS: In total, 1,047 patients were enrolled in AS for a minimum of 12 months after initial biopsy. Four hundred seventy-seven (45%) underwent second biopsy at 1 of the 9 PURC practices. The number of patients undergoing re-biopsy within 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, and >18 months was 71 (14%), 218 (45.7%), 134 (28%), and 54 (11%), respectively. Sixty percent underwent confirmatory biopsy within 12 months. On multivariate analysis, re-biopsy interval was associated with number of positive cores, perineural invasion, and practice ID (all P < 0.05). Adjusted multivariable regression did not identify factors predictive of re-biopsy interval. CONCLUSION: Of patients who underwent confirmatory biopsy at PURC practices, 60.5% were within 12 months per NCCN guidelines. This suggests area for improvement in guideline adherence after enrollment in AS. All practices that offer AS should periodically perform similar analyses to monitor their performance. In an era of value-based care, adherence to guideline based active surveillance practices may eventually comprise national quality metrics affecting provider reimbursement.

Stakeholder Perspective on Opioid Stewardship After Prostatectomy: Evaluating Barriers and Facilitators From the Pennsylvania Urology Regional Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate existing practice patterns and potential barriers to implementing opioid stewardship protocols after robot-assisted prostatectomies among providers in the Pennsylvania Urology Regional Collaborative. METHODS: The Pennsylvania Urology Regional Collaborative (PURC) is a voluntary quality improvement initiative of 11 academic and community urology practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey representing 97 urologists. PURC distributed a web-based survey of 24 questions, with 74 respondents, including 56 attendings, 11 residents, and 7 advanced practice providers. RESULTS: More pills were prescribed if there was a default number of pills from the electronic health record (median 30) then if the number of pills was manually placed (P = .01). Only 8% discussed how to dispose of opioids with their patients, and less than a third of respondents discussed postoperative pain expectations or risks of opioid use. Patient level risk factors were often not reviewed, as 42% did not ask about previous opioid exposure. CONCLUSION: This study revealed extensive knowledge disparities among providers about opioid stewardship and significant gaps in the evidence-to-practice continuum of care. In the next year, PURC will be implementing targeted interventions to augment provider education, establish clear pathways for opioid disposal, improve utilization of known resources and implement opioid reduction protocols in all participating sites.

Active Surveillance as Initial Management of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer: Data from the PURC.

PURPOSE: We describe contemporary active surveillance utilization and variation in a regional prostate cancer collaborative. We identified demographic and disease specific factors associated with active surveillance in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from the PURC (Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative), a cooperative effort of urology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We determined the rates of active surveillance among men with newly diagnosed NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) very low, low or intermediate prostate cancer and compared the rates among participating practices and providers. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to identify factors associated with active surveillance utilization. RESULTS: A total of 1,880 men met inclusion criteria. Of the men with NCCN very low or low risk prostate cancer 57.4% underwent active surveillance as the initial management strategy. Increasing age was significantly associated with active surveillance (p <0.001) while adverse clinicopathological variables were associated with decreased active surveillance use. Substantial variation in active surveillance utilization was observed among practices and providers. CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of men with low risk disease in the PURC collaborative were treated with active surveillance. However, substantial variation in active surveillance rates were observed among practices and providers in academic and community settings. Advanced age and favorable clinicopathological factors were strongly associated with active surveillance. Analysis of regional collaboratives such as the PURC may allow for the development of strategies to better standardize treatment in men with prostate cancer and offer active surveillance in a more uniform and systematic fashion.