BioPrev-C - development and validation of a contemporary prostate cancer risk calculator.

Objectives: To develop a novel biopsy prostate cancer (PCa) prevention calculator (BioPrev-C) using data from a prospective cohort all undergoing mpMRI targeted and transperineal template saturation biopsy. Materials and methods: Data of all men who underwent prostate biopsy in our academic tertiary care center between 11/2016 and 10/2019 was prospectively collected. We developed a clinical prediction model for the detection of high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7) based on a multivariable logistic regression model incorporating age, PSA, prostate volume, digital rectal examination, family history, previous negative biopsy, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor use and MRI PI-RADS score. BioPrev-C performance was externally validated in another prospective Swiss cohort and compared with two other PCa risk-calculators (SWOP-RC and PBCG-RC). Results: Of 391 men in the development cohort, 157 (40.2%) were diagnosed with high-grade PCa. Validation of the BioPrev C revealed good discrimination with an area under the curve for high-grade PCa of 0.88 (95% Confidence Interval 0.82-0.93), which was higher compared to the other two risk calculators (0.71 for PBCG and 0.84 for SWOP). The BioPrev-C revealed good calibration in the low-risk range (0 - 0.25) and moderate overestimation in the intermediate risk range (0.25 - 0.75). The PBCG-RC showed good calibration and the SWOP-RC constant underestimation of high-grade PCa over the whole prediction range. Decision curve analyses revealed a clinical net benefit for the BioPrev-C at a clinical meaningful threshold probability range (≥4%), whereas PBCG and SWOP calculators only showed clinical net benefit above a 30% threshold probability. Conclusion: BiopPrev-C is a novel contemporary risk calculator for the prediction of high-grade PCa. External validation of the BioPrev-C revealed relevant clinical benefit, which was superior compared to other well-known risk calculators. The BioPrev-C has the potential to significantly and safely reduce the number of men who should undergo a prostate biopsy.

Evaluation of Proclarix in the diagnostic work-up of prostate cancer.

Objectives: The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been widely adopted in the diagnostic work-up for suspicious prostate cancer (PCa) and is recommended in most current guidelines. However, mpMRI lesions are often indeterminate and/or turn out to be false-positive on prostate biopsy. The aim of this work was to evaluate Proclarix, a biomarker test for the detection of relevant PCa, regarding its diagnostic value in all men before biopsy and in men with indeterminate lesions on mpMRI (PI-RADS 3) during work-up for PCa. Materials and Methods: Men undergoing mpMRI-targeted and systematic biopsy of the prostate were prospectively enrolled. The Proclarix test was evaluated for the detection accuracy of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Grade Group ≥ 2 and its association to mpMRI results. Further, Proclarix's performance was also tested when adapted to prostate volume (Proclarix density) and performance compared to PSA density (PSAD). Results: A total of 150 men with a median age of 65 years and median PSA of 5.8 ng/mL were included in this study. CsPCa was diagnosed in 65 (43%) men. Proclarix was significantly associated with csPCa and higher PI-RADS score (p < 0.001). At the pre-defined cut-off of 10%, Proclarix's sensitivity for csPCa was 94%, specificity 19%, negative predictive value 80% and positive predictive value 47%. Proclarix density showed the highest AUC for the detection of csPCa of 0.77 (95%CI: 0.69-0.85) compared to PSA, PSAD and Proclarix alone. Proclarix was able to identify all six csPCa in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions (n = 28), whereas PSAD missed two out of six. At optimized cut-offs, Proclarix density outperformed PSAD by potentially avoiding 41% of unnecessary biopsies. Conclusion: Proclarix demonstrates high sensitivity in detecting csPCa but may still result in unnecessary biopsies. However, Proclarix density was able to outperform PSAD and Proclarix and was found to be useful in men with PI-RADS 3 findings by safely avoiding unnecessary biopsies without missing csPCa.

The Role of Additional Epididymis Resection during Hydrocelectomy: Is It of Any Benefit in Comparison to Simple Hydrocelectomy?

INTRODUCTION: Open hydrocelectomy via scrotal incision is the standard approach for secondary hydroceles. Traditionally, the Swiss urologic community offer hydrocelectomy with additional resection of the epididymis in elderly men with completed family planning. It is believed that the additional resection of the epididymis reduces the postoperative recurrence rate of hydroceles. However, there is no evidence supporting this theory. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the recurrence and complication rates for patients with secondary hydroceles undergoing either pure hydrocelectomy (puH) or hydrocelectomy with additional resection of the epididymis (HRE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed all male patients who underwent surgical therapy for secondary hydroceles between May 2003 and February 2019 at our institution. Patient's baseline and perioperative characteristics as well as postoperative characteristics including complications and recurrence rates were gathered and compared between different surgical techniques. RESULTS: A total of 234 patients were identified. puH was performed in 93 (40%) cases and HRE in 141 (60%) patients. Patients in the HRE group were older (median age: 62 vs. 38 years, p < 0.001), had a higher ASA-Score (p < 0.001), were more often on platelet aggregation inhibitors (19% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.01), and had a longer median operative time (75 vs. 64 min, p < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 46 months, a similar number of recurrent hydroceles were found for puH (7 [7.5%]) and HRE (6 [4.5%]) (p = 0.3). Complications were observed in 19 (20%) cases after puH compared to 25 (18%) cases after HRE (p = 0.6). Patients after puH experienced more often severe complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade 3b) compared to the HRE group (5 vs. 12%, p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: puH and HRE showed similar results in terms of overall low recurrence rates and also in terms of postoperative complications, even though patients who underwent puH experienced slightly higher severe complications. Both procedures are safe and effective, but it seems that HRE does not provide a relevant clinical benefit in comparison to puH for the management of men with secondary hydroceles.

Prevalence and causes of abnormal PSA recovery.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test is of paramount importance as a diagnostic tool for the detection and monitoring of patients with prostate cancer. In the presence of interfering factors such as heterophilic antibodies or anti-PSA antibodies the PSA test can yield significantly falsified results. The prevalence of these factors is unknown. METHODS: We determined the recovery of PSA concentrations diluting patient samples with a standard serum of known PSA concentration. Based on the frequency distribution of recoveries in a pre-study on 268 samples, samples with recoveries <80% or >120% were defined as suspect, re-tested and further characterized to identify the cause of interference. RESULTS: A total of 1158 consecutive serum samples were analyzed. Four samples (0.3%) showed reproducibly disturbed recoveries of 10%, 68%, 166% and 4441%. In three samples heterophilic antibodies were identified as the probable cause, in the fourth anti-PSA-autoantibodies. The very low recovery caused by the latter interference was confirmed in serum, as well as heparin- and EDTA plasma of blood samples obtained 6 months later. Analysis by eight different immunoassays showed recoveries ranging between <10% and 80%. In a follow-up study of 212 random plasma samples we found seven samples with autoantibodies against PSA which however did not show any disturbed PSA recovery. CONCLUSIONS: About 0.3% of PSA determinations by the electrochemiluminescence assay (ECLIA) of Roche diagnostics are disturbed by heterophilic or anti-PSA autoantibodies. Although they are rare, these interferences can cause relevant misinterpretations of a PSA test result.