Evolving understanding and categorization of prostate cancer: preventing progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: RADAR IV.

INTRODUCTION To interpret data and update the traditional categorization of prostate cancer in order to help treating clinicians make more informed decisions. These updates include guidance regarding how to best use next generation imaging (NGI) with the caveat that the new imaging technologies are still a work in progress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: Critical goals in prostate cancer management include preventing or delaying emergence of distant metastases and progression to castration-resistant disease. Pathways for progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) involve transitional states: nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), and oligometastatic disease. Determination of clinical state depends in part on available imaging modalities. Currently, fluciclovine and gallium-68 (68Ga) prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) are the NGI approaches with the most favorable combination of availability, specificity, and sensitivity. PET imaging can be used to help guide treatment selection in most patients. NGI can help determine patients who are candidates for new treatments, most notably (next-generation androgen antagonists, eg, apalutamide, enzalutamide, darolutamide), that can delay progression to advanced disease. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to achieve a consensus on new and more easily understood terminology to clearly and effectively describe prostate cancer and its progression to health care professionals and patients. It is also important that description of disease states make clear the need to initiate appropriate treatment. This may be particularly important for disease in transition to mCRPC.

Evaluation of Cxbladder and Adjudication of Atypical Cytology and Equivocal Cystoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Cxbladder diagnostic tests combine genomic information from urinary mRNA with phenotypic information to either rule out low-risk individuals or identify patients at a high risk of urothelial carcinoma (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of Cxbladder and urine cytology, and Cxbladder's adjudication of atypical cytology and equivocal cystoscopy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a retrospective analysis of pooled data from three prospective Cxbladder clinical trials and one real-world clinical study. Physicians were blinded to Cxbladder results, and Cxbladder providers were blinded to clinical results. This study analyzed diverse urology practices in the USA, Australia, and New Zealand. A total of 1784 consecutive, prospectively recruited patients with hematuria or previously diagnosed UC provided 852 samples with both local cytology and Cxbladder results; 153 had atypical cytologies and 14 had both atypical cytology and equivocal cystoscopy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Negative predictive value (NPV) and proportion of tumors missed for Cxbladder and local cytology, and evaluation of Cxbladder for adjudicating atypical cytology and equivocal cystoscopy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Cxbladder ruled out 35% of patients and NPV 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94-98%) compared with 93% (95% CI 91-94%) for cytology; Cxbladder missed 8.5% and cytology missed 63% of tumors. UC was diagnosed in 26/153 cases of atypical cytology (17%). Cxbladder correctly adjudicated all these patients including those with both atypical cytology and equivocal cystoscopy; these patients had a positive Cxbladder result and were diagnosed with UC by pathology. The incidence of patients with both atypical cytology and equivocal cystoscopy is low. CONCLUSIONS: Cxbladder correctly adjudicated all patients diagnosed with UC among those with atypical cytology and equivocal cystoscopy, and outperformed cytology for accurately identifying patients who do not have UC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cxbladder accurately rules out patients who do not have cancer, and adjudicates cytology and cystoscopy with inconclusive results, minimizing the need for patients to undergo further unnecessary tests and procedures.

Change in prostate cancer presentation coinciding with USPSTF screening recommendations at a community-based urology practice.

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening are controversial. We sought to determine the change in prostate cancer presentation coinciding with the release of the United States Preventative Services Task Force recommendations against screening in a high-volume community-based urology practice. METHODS: Characteristics of men presenting for an elevated PSA at a community urology practice from August 2011 to August 2015 were queried from a prospectively collected database. A retrospective analysis of presenting PSA, Gleason grade at biopsy, and prostatectomy as well as clinical and pathologic stage was performed. Kruskal-Wallis rank sum and chi-square tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: Referrals for elevated PSA decreased from 933 in year 1 to 816 by year 4 (12.5% decrease) with a concomitant reduction in biopsies performed in newly referred men from 461 to 356 (22.8% decrease, P = 0.02). The proportion of men presenting with PSAs>10 increased from 28.1% to 36.8% (P = 0.009). First-time biopsy-positivity rate increased from 48.4% to 62.4% with a rise in the proportion having Gleason≥7 from 51.6% to 69.7% (P = 0.0001). Of the 578 men who underwent radical prostatectomy, there was a 19.4% increase in Gleason≥7 tumors (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a decrease in elevated PSA referrals, increase in PSA at the time of referral, decrease in detection of low-risk disease, and increase in detection of intermediate-/high-risk disease in a high-volume, multisite, community-based urology practice, coinciding with the United States Preventative Services Task Force recommendations against PSA screening.

Restriction spectrum imaging: An evolving imaging biomarker in prostate MRI.

Restriction spectrum imaging (RSI) is a novel diffusion-weighted MRI technique that uses the mathematically distinct behavior of water diffusion in separable microscopic tissue compartments to highlight key aspects of the tissue microarchitecture with high conspicuity. RSI can be acquired in less than 5 min on modern scanners using a surface coil. Multiple field gradients and high b-values in combination with postprocessing techniques allow the simultaneous resolution of length-scale and geometric information, as well as compartmental and nuclear volume fraction filtering. RSI also uses a distortion correction technique and can thus be fused to high resolution T2-weighted images for detailed localization, which improves delineation of disease extension into critical anatomic structures. In this review, we discuss the acquisition, postprocessing, and interpretation of RSI for prostate MRI. We also summarize existing data demonstrating the applicability of RSI for prostate cancer detection, in vivo characterization, localization, and targeting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:323-336.

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation does not affect glomerular filtration rate.

PURPOSE: To study short- and intermediate-term global renal function in patients undergoing a single percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (pRFA) for a solitary renal parenchymal tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 62 patients who underwent a single pRFA for solitary renal parenchymal tumor. We used the abbreviated Modified Diet for Renal Disease equation to calculate baseline, 1-month, and 1-year glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We defined normal as >60, moderately diminished as 45-60, and severely diminished GFR as <45 cc/minute/1.73 m². We used the Wilcoxon paired rank sum method to compare 1-month and 1-year GFR to baseline. We fit a linear regression model to test the association of lesion size to GFR controlling for lesion location and baseline GFR. RESULTS: There was no difference in GFR from baseline at 1 month or 1 year (55 vs. 58 cc/minute/1.73 m², p=0.24 and 55 vs. 57 cc/minute/1.73 m², p=0.8, respectively). Tumor size did not affect GFR at 1 month or 1 year after controlling for lesion location and baseline GFR. CONCLUSIONS: A single application of pRFA does not affect GFR in the short or intermediate term.