A semi-automated software program to assess the impact of second reads in prostate MRI for equivocal lesions: results from a UK tertiary referral centre.

PURPOSE: To investigate the utility of a prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) second read using a semi-automated software program in the one-stop clinic, where patients undergo multiparametric MRI, review and biopsy planning in one visit. We looked at concordance between readers for patients with equivocal scans and the possibility for biopsy deferral in this group. METHODS: We present data from 664 consecutive patients. Scans were reported by seven different expert genitourinary radiologists using dedicated software (MIM®) and a Likert scale. All scans were rescored by another expert genitourinary radiologist using a customised workflow for second reads that includes annotated biopsy contours for accurate visual targeting. The number of scans in which a biopsy could have been deferred using biopsy results and prostate specific antigen density was assessed. Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4 was considered clinically significant disease. Concordance between first and second reads for equivocal scans (Likert 3) was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 209/664 (31%) patients scored Likert 3 on first read, 128 of which (61%) were concordant after second read. 103/209 (49%) of patients with Likert 3 scans were biopsied, with clinically significant disease in 31 (30%) cases. Considering Likert 3 scans that were both downgraded and biopsied using the workflow-generated biopsy contours, 25/103 (24%) biopsies could have been deferred. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a semi-automated workflow for accurate lesion contouring and targeting biopsies is helpful during the one-stop clinic. We observed a reduction of indeterminate scans after second reading and almost a quarter of biopsies could have been deferred, reducing the potential biopsy-related side effects.

NeuroSAFE PROOF: study protocol for a single-blinded, IDEAL stage 3, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of NeuroSAFE robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a first-line curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Postoperative erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are common associated adverse side effects that can negatively impact patients' quality of life. Preserving the lateral neurovascular bundles (NS) during RARP improves functional outcomes. However, selecting men for NS may be difficult when there is concern about incurring in positive surgical margin (PSM) which in turn risks adverse oncological outcomes. The NeuroSAFE technique (intra-operative frozen section examination of the neurovascular structure adjacent prostate margin) can provide real-time pathological consult to promote optimal NS whilst avoiding PSM. METHODS: NeuroSAFE PROOF is a single-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which men are randomly allocated 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RARP or standard RARP. Men electing for RARP as primary treatment, who are continent and have good baseline erectile function (EF), defined by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score > 21, are eligible. NS in the intervention arm is guided by the NeuroSAFE technique. NS in the standard arm is based on standard of care, i.e. a pre-operative image-based planning meeting, patient-specific clinical information, and digital rectal examination. The primary outcome is assessment of EF at 12 months. The primary endpoint is the proportion of men who achieve IIEF-5 score ≥ 21. A sample size of 404 was calculated to give a power of 90% to detect a difference of 14% between groups based on a feasibility study. Oncological outcomes are continuously monitored by an independent Data Monitoring Committee. Key secondary outcomes include urinary continence at 3 months assessed by the international consultation on incontinence questionnaire, rate of biochemical recurrence, EF recovery at 24 months, and difference in quality of life. DISCUSSION: NeuroSAFE PROOF is the first RCT of intra-operative frozen section during radical prostatectomy in the world. It is properly powered to evaluate a difference in the recovery of EF for men undergoing RARP assessed by patient-reported outcome measures. It will provide evidence to guide the use of the NeuroSAFE technique around the world. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03317990 (23 October 2017). Regional Ethics Committee; reference 17/LO/1978.

Negative mpMRI Rules Out Extra-Prostatic Extension in Prostate Cancer before Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Background: The accuracy of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) in the pre-operative staging of prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of mpMRI to accurately predict PCa extra-prostatic extension (EPE) on a side-specific basis using a risk-stratified 5-point Likert scale. This study also aimed to assess the influence of mpMRI scan quality on diagnostic accuracy. Patients and Methods: We included 124 men who underwent robot-assisted RP (RARP) as part of the NeuroSAFE PROOF study at our centre. Three radiologists retrospectively reviewed mpMRI blinded to RP pathology and assigned a Likert score (1-5) for EPE on each side of the prostate. Each scan was also ascribed a Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) score for assessing the quality of the mpMRI scan, where 1 represents the poorest and 5 represents the best diagnostic quality. Outcome measurements and statistical analyses: Diagnostic performance is presented for the binary classification of EPE, including 95% confidence intervals and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: A total of 231 lobes from 121 men (mean age 56.9 years) were evaluated. Of these, 39 men (32.2%), or 43 lobes (18.6%), had EPE. A Likert score ≥3 had a sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), NPV, and PPV of 90.4%, 52.3%, 96%, and 29.9%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.86). The AUC was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.88), 0.78 (0.72-0.84), and 0.92 (0.88-0.96) for biparametric scans, PI-QUAL 1-3, and PI-QUAL 4-5 scans, respectively. Conclusions: MRI can be used effectively by genitourinary radiologists to rule out EPE and help inform surgical planning for men undergoing RARP. EPE prediction was more reliable when the MRI scan was (a) multi-parametric and (b) of a higher image quality according to the PI-QUAL scoring system.

NeuroSAFE frozen section during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: peri-operative and histopathological outcomes from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To report on the methods, peri-operative outcomes and histopathological concordance between frozen and final section from the NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study (NCT03317990). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2018 and March 2019, 49 patients at two UK centres underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Twenty-five patient were randomized to NeuroSAFE RARP (intervention arm) and 24 to standard RARP (control arm). Frozen section was compared to final paraffin section margin assessment in the 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm. Operation timings and complications were collected prospectively in both arms. RESULTS: Fifty neurovascular bundles (NVBs) from 25 patients in the NeuroSAFE arm were analysed. When analysed by each pathological section (n = 250, average five per side), we noted a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.2%, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.994 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.985 to 1; P ≤0.001). On an NVB basis (n = 50), sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 92.7%, and the AUC was 0.963 (95% CI 0.914 to 1; P ≤0.001). NeuroSAFE RARP lasted a mean of 3 h 16 min (knife to skin to off table, 95% CI 3 h 2 min-3 h 30 min) compared to 2 h 4 min (95% CI 2 h 2 min-2 h 25 min; P ≤0.001) for standard RARP. There was no morbidity associated with the additional length of operating time on in the NeuroSAFE arm. CONCLUSION: This feasibility study demonstrates the safety, reproducibility and excellent histopathological concordance of the NeuroSAFE technique in the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial. Although the technique increases the duration of RARP, this does not cause short-term harm. Confirmation of feasibility has led to the opening of the fully powered NeuroSAFE PROOF randomized controlled trial, which is currently under way at four sites in the UK.

Floppy Glans-Classification, Diagnosis and Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Glans hypermobility presents a rarely observed complication of penile prosthesis implantation. It may result in patient dissatisfaction because of painful intercourse, difficulties during penetrative sex, and a poor cosmetic result. This problem may prevent the patient from using an otherwise fully functional implant. AIM: To summarize current knowledge, clarify terminology, and review treatment options of multifaceted diagnosis of floppy glans. METHODS: Analysis of published literature and experience of authors' institution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We reviewed publications that outlined incidence, pathophysiology, diagnostics, and management strategies of floppy glans phenomenon. RESULTS: Floppy glans phenomenon can result from the soft glans, incorrect position, or size of the implant cylinders or the anatomy of the glans. A careful physical examination with a fully inflated implant will indicate the direction of the droop and can be very helpful in distinguishing the underlying cause of the deformity. In ambiguous cases obtaining a correct diagnosis will often involve imaging-magnetic resonance imaging or penile ultrasound scanning of the inflated device. Cooperation with an experienced uroradiologist is invaluable in such cases. The glanspexy procedure should be performed according to the surgeon's experience and preference. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the different glans abnormalities and unified terminology is crucial for optimization of the treatment. Medical therapy can always be tried before revision surgery, as long as it is safe for the patient and function of the implant. The accuracy of the position and size of the implant should always be thoroughly assessed before a diagnosis of the real glans hypermobility is made and treatment provided. Skrodzka M, Heffernan Ho D, Ralph D. Floppy Glans-Classification, Diagnosis And Treatment. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:303-313.