Clinical Proof-of-concept of a Novel Platform Utilizing Biopsy-derived Live Single Cells, Phenotypic Biomarkers, and Machine Learning Toward a Precision Risk Stratification Test for Prostate Cancer Grade Groups 1 and 2 (Gleason 3 + 3 and 3 + 4).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the ability of a novel live primary-cell phenotypic (LPCP) test to predict postsurgical adverse pathology (P-SAP) features and risk stratify patients based on SAP features in a blinded study utilizing radical prostatectomy (RP) surgical specimens. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-one men undergoing RP were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter (10), and proof-of-concept study in the United States. Fresh prostate samples were taken from known areas of cancer in the operating room immediately after RP. Samples were shipped and tested at a central laboratory. Utilizing the LPCP test, a suite of phenotypic biomarkers was analyzed and quantified using objective machine vision software. Biomarkers were objectively ranked via machine learning-derived statistical algorithms (MLDSA) to predict postsurgical adverse pathological features. Sensitivity and specificity were determined by comparing blinded predictions and unblinded RP surgical pathology reports, training MLDSAs on 70% of biopsy cells and testing MLDSAs on the remaining 30% of biopsy cells across the tested patient population. RESULTS: The LPCP test predicted adverse pathologies post-RP with area under the curve (AUC) via receiver operating characteristics analysis of greater than 0.80 and distinguished between Prostate Cancer Grade Groups 1, 2, and 3/Gleason Scores 3 + 3, 3 + 4, and 4 + 3. Further, LPCP derived-biomarker scores predicted Gleason pattern, stage, and adverse pathology with high precision-AUCs>0.80. CONCLUSION: Using MLDSA-derived phenotypic biomarker scores, the LPCP test successfully risk stratified Prostate Cancer Grade Groups 1, 2, and 3 (Gleason 3 + 3 and 7) into distinct subgroups predicted to have surgical adverse pathologies or not with high performance (>0.85 AUC).

A Parallel Randomized Clinical Trial Examining the Return of Urinary Continence after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy with or without a Small Intestinal Submucosa Bladder Neck Sling.

PURPOSE: Urinary continence is a driver of quality of life after radical prostatectomy. In this study we evaluated the impact of a biological bladder neck sling on the return of urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study compared early continence in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a sling and without a sling in a 2-group, 1:1, parallel, randomized controlled trial. Patients were blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was defined as urinary continence (0 to 1 pad per day) at 1 month postoperatively. Inclusion criteria were organ confined prostate cancer and a prostate specific antigen less than 15 ng/ml. Exclusion criteria were any prior surgery on the prostate, a history of neurogenic bladder and history of pelvic radiation. A chi-squared test was used for the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients were randomized (control 74, sling 73) and 92% were available for primary end point analysis at 1 month. There were no significant differences in baseline or perioperative data except that operating room time was 20.1 minutes longer for the sling group (p=0.04). The continence rate was similar between the control and sling groups at 1 month (47.1% vs 55.2%, p=0.34) and 12 months (86.7% vs 94.5%, p=0.15), respectively. Adverse events were similar between the control and sling groups (10.8% vs 13.7%, p=0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The application of an absorbable urethral sling at robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was well tolerated with no increase in obstructive symptoms in this randomized trial. However, the sling failed to show a significant improvement in continence.

Impact of the Cell Cycle Progression Test on Physician and Patient Treatment Selection for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The cell cycle progression test is a validated molecular assay that assesses prostate cancer specific disease progression and mortality risk when combined with clinicopathological parameters. We present the results from PROCEDE-1000, a large, prospective registry designed to evaluate the impact of the cell cycle progression test on shared treatment decision making for patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Untreated patients with newly diagnosed prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the study and the cell cycle progression test was performed on the initial prostate biopsy tissue. A set of 4 sequential surveys tracked changes relative to initial therapy recommendations (before cell cycle progression) based on clinicopathological parameters following physician review of the cell cycle progression test result, physician/patient review of the cell cycle progression test results and a minimum of 3 months of clinical followup (actual treatment). RESULTS: Of the 1,596 patients enrolled in this registry 1,206 were eligible for analysis. There was a significant reduction in the treatment burden recorded at each successive evaluation (p <0.0001), with the mean number of treatments per patient decreasing from 1.72 before the cell cycle progression test to 1.16 in actual followup. The cell cycle progression test caused a change in actual treatment in 47.8% of patients. Of these changes 72.1% were reductions and 26.9% were increases in treatment. For each clinical risk category there was a significant change in treatment modality (intervention vs nonintervention) before vs after cell cycle progression testing (p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: The cell cycle progression test has a significant impact in assisting physicians and patients reach personalized treatment decisions.

Effect of a genomic classifier test on clinical practice decisions for patients with high-risk prostate cancer after surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a genomic classifier (GC) test for predicting metastasis risk after radical prostatectomy (RP) on urologists' decision-making about adjuvant treatment of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patient case history was extracted from the medical records of each of the 145 patients with pT3 disease or positive surgical margins (PSMs) after RP treated by six high-volume urologists, from five community practices. GC results were available for 122 (84%) of these patients. US board-certified urologists (n = 107) were invited to provide adjuvant treatment recommendations for 10 cases randomly drawn from the pool of patient case histories. For each case, the study participants were asked to make an adjuvant therapy recommendation without (clinical variables only) and with knowledge of the GC test results. Recommendations were made without knowledge of other participants' responses and the presentation of case histories was randomised to minimise recall bias. RESULTS: A total of 110 patient case histories were available for review by the study participants. The median patient age was 62 years, 71% of patients had pT3 disease and 63% had PSMs. The median (range) 5-year predicted probability of metastasis by the GC test for the cohort was 3.9 (1-33)% and the GC test classified 72% of patients as having low risk for metastasis. A total of 51 urologists consented to the study and provided 530 adjuvant treatment recommendations without, and 530 with knowledge of the GC test results. Study participants performed a mean of 130 RPs/year and 55% were from community-based practices. Without GC test result knowledge, observation was recommended for 57% (n = 303), adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) for 36% (n = 193) and other treatments for 7% (n = 34) of patients. Overall, 31% (95% CI: 27-35%) of treatment recommendations changed with knowledge of the GC test results. Of the ART recommendations without GC test result knowledge, 40% (n = 77) changed to observation (95% CI: 33-47%) with this knowledge. Of patients recommended for observation, 13% (n = 38 [95% CI: 9-17%]) were changed to ART with knowledge of the GC test result. Patients with low risk disease according to the GC test were recommended for observation 81% of the time (n = 276), while of those with high risk, 65% were recommended for treatment (n = 118; P < 0.001). Treatment intensity was strongly correlated with the GC-predicted probability of metastasis (P < 0.001) and the GC test was the dominant risk factor driving decisions in multivariable analysis (odds ratio 8.6, 95% CI: 5.3-14.3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of GC test results had a direct effect on treatment strategies after surgery. Recommendations for observation increased by 20% for patients assessed by the GC test to be at low risk of metastasis, whereas recommendations for treatment increased by 16% for patients at high risk of metastasis. These results suggest that the implementation of genomic testing in clinical practice may lead to significant changes in adjuvant therapy decision-making for high-risk prostate cancer.

Influence of a genomic classifier on post-operative treatment decisions in high-risk prostate cancer patients: results from the PRO-ACT study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of an individualized genomic classifier (GC) test, for predicting metastasis following radical prostatectomy (RP), on urologists' adjuvant treatment decisions when caring for high-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were submitted by US board-certified urologists in community practices (n = 15), who ordered the GC test for 146 prostate cancer patients with adverse pathologic features following RP (i.e., pathologic stage pT3 or positive surgical margins). Treatment recommendations were reported using an electronic data collection instrument, before and after reviewing the GC test report. Physicians also completed a Decision Conflict Scale (DCS), a decisional conflict measure, to assess their confidence with their treatment recommendations. RESULTS: Over 60% of high-risk patients were re-classified as low risk after review of the GC test results. Overall, adjuvant treatment recommendations were modified for 30.8% (95% CI = 23-39%) of patients. With GC test results, 42.5% of patients who were initially recommended adjuvant therapy were subsequently recommended observation. Although the number of patients recommended adjuvant therapy remained the same before and after review of the GC test results, it did influence patient treatment strategies. Multivariable analysis confirmed GC risk was the only significant predictor of treatment recommendations (OR = 4.04; 95% CI = 2.36, 6.92; p < 0.0001). Decisional conflict with regard to adjuvant treatment decisions was significantly less with the use of the GC test (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Information on individualized metastasis risk based on a patient's tumor biology, with use of the GC test, significantly changed urologists' adjuvant treatment recommendations for post-operative patients with prostate cancer, who were at high risk of metastasis. Namely, the results of this study provide evidence for the utility of the GC test, and show it may guide use of adjuvant radiation.

Unusual presentation of bilateral ureteroceles with ureterolithiasis in a patient after robotic prostatectomy.

We present a unique case of incidentally discovered symptomatic, stone-laden ureteroceles after robotic prostatectomy at a high-volume institution. The 2-month postoperative timeline to presentation and laser unroofing management strategy for bilateral ureteroceles after robotic prostatectomy are described.