Assessing the Clinical Utility of Published Prostate Cancer Polygenic Risk Scores in a Large Biobank Data Set.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have been developed to identify men with the highest risk of prostate cancer. Our aim was to compare the performance of 16 PRSs in identifying men at risk of developing prostate cancer and then to evaluate the performance of the top-performing PRSs in differentiating individuals at risk of aggressive prostate cancer. METHODS: For this case-control study we downloaded 16 published PRSs from the Polygenic Score Catalog on May 28, 2021 and applied them to Michigan Genomics Initiative (MGI) patients. Cases were matched to the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry to obtain granular clinical and pathological data. MGI prospectively enrolls patients undergoing surgery at the University of Michigan, and MUSIC is a multi-institutional registry that prospectively tracks demographic, treatment, and clinical variables. The predictive performance of each PRS was evaluated using the area under the covariate-adjusted receiver operating characteristic curve (aAUC), and the association between PRS and disease aggressiveness according to prostate biopsy data was measured using logistic regression. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We included 18 050 patients in the analysis, of whom 15 310 were control subjects and 2740 were prostate cancer cases. The median age was 66.1 yr (interquartile range 59.9-71.6) for cases and 56.6 yr (interquartile range 42.6-66.7) for control subjects. The PRS performance in predicting the risk of developing prostate cancer according to aAUC ranged from 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.51-0.53) to 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.68). By contrast, there was no association between PRS and disease aggressiveness. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Prostate cancer PRSs have modest real-world performance in identifying patients at higher risk of developing prostate cancer; however, they are limited in distinguishing patients with indolent versus aggressive disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: Risk scores using data for multiple genes (called polygenic risk scores) can identify men at higher risk of developing prostate cancer. However, these scores need to be refined to be able to identify men with the highest risk for clinically significant prostate cancer.

Integrative multi-region molecular profiling of primary prostate cancer in men with synchronous lymph node metastasis.

Localized prostate cancer is frequently composed of multiple spatially distinct tumors with significant inter- and intra-tumoral molecular heterogeneity. This genomic diversity gives rise to many competing clones that may drive the biological trajectory of the disease. Previous large-scale sequencing efforts have focused on the evolutionary process in metastatic prostate cancer, revealing a potential clonal progression to castration resistance. However, the clonal origin of synchronous lymph node (LN) metastases in primary disease is still unknown. Here, we perform multi-region, targeted next generation sequencing and construct phylogenetic trees in men with prostate cancer with synchronous LN metastasis to better define the pathologic and molecular features of primary disease most likely to spread to the LNs. Collectively, we demonstrate that a combination of histopathologic and molecular factors, including tumor grade, presence of extra-prostatic extension, cellular morphology, and oncogenic genomic alterations are associated with synchronous LN metastasis.

Development and Validation of an 18-Gene Urine Test for High-Grade Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Benefits of prostate cancer (PCa) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) alone are largely offset by excess negative biopsies and overdetection of indolent cancers resulting from the poor specificity of PSA for high-grade PCa (ie, grade group [GG] 2 or greater). Objective: To develop a multiplex urinary panel for high-grade PCa and validate its external performance relative to current guideline-endorsed biomarkers. Design, Setting, and Participants: RNA sequencing analysis of 58 724 genes identified 54 markers of PCa, including 17 markers uniquely overexpressed by high-grade cancers. Gene expression and clinical factors were modeled in a new urinary test for high-grade PCa (MyProstateScore 2.0 [MPS2]). Optimal models were developed in parallel without prostate volume (MPS2) and with prostate volume (MPS2+). The locked models underwent blinded external validation in a prospective National Cancer Institute trial cohort. Data were collected from January 2008 to December 2020, and data were analyzed from November 2022 to November 2023. Exposure: Protocolized blood and urine collection and transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multiple biomarker tests were assessed in the validation cohort, including serum PSA alone, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator, and the Prostate Health Index (PHI) as well as derived multiplex 2-gene and 3-gene models, the original 2-gene MPS test, and the 18-gene MPS2 models. Under a testing approach with 95% sensitivity for PCa of GG 2 or greater, measures of diagnostic accuracy and clinical consequences of testing were calculated. Cancers of GG 3 or greater were assessed secondarily. Results: Of 761 men included in the development cohort, the median (IQR) age was 63 (58-68) years, and the median (IQR) PSA level was 5.6 (4.6-7.2) ng/mL; of 743 men included in the validation cohort, the median (IQR) age was 62 (57-68) years, and the median (IQR) PSA level was 5.6 (4.1-8.0) ng/mL. In the validation cohort, 151 (20.3%) had high-grade PCa on biopsy. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values were 0.60 using PSA alone, 0.66 using the risk calculator, 0.77 using PHI, 0.76 using the derived multiplex 2-gene model, 0.72 using the derived multiplex 3-gene model, and 0.74 using the original MPS model compared with 0.81 using the MPS2 model and 0.82 using the MPS2+ model. At 95% sensitivity, the MPS2 model would have reduced unnecessary biopsies performed in the initial biopsy population (range for other tests, 15% to 30%; range for MPS2, 35% to 42%) and repeat biopsy population (range for other tests, 9% to 21%; range for MPS2, 46% to 51%). Across pertinent subgroups, the MPS2 models had negative predictive values of 95% to 99% for cancers of GG 2 or greater and of 99% for cancers of GG 3 or greater. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a new 18-gene PCa test had higher diagnostic accuracy for high-grade PCa relative to existing biomarker tests. Clinically, use of this test would have meaningfully reduced unnecessary biopsies performed while maintaining highly sensitive detection of high-grade cancers. These data support use of this new PCa biomarker test in patients with elevated PSA levels to reduce the potential harms of PCa screening while preserving its long-term benefits.

Impact of Circulating Tumor Cell-Expressed Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen and Prostate-Specific Antigen Transcripts in Different Stages of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based images, which visually quantify PSMA expression, are used to determine prostate cancer micrometastases. This study evaluated whether a circulating tumor cell (CTC)-based transcript platform, including PSMA mRNA, could help identify potential prognostic markers in prostate cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We prospectively enrolled 21 healthy individuals and 247 patients with prostate cancer [localized prostate cancer (LPCa), n = 94; metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), n = 44; and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), n = 109]. The mRNA expression of six transcripts [PSMA, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), AR, AR-V7, EpCAM, and KRT 19] from CTCs was measured, and their relationship with biochemical recurrence (BCR) in LPCa and mCRPC progression-free survival (PFS) rate in mHSPC was assessed. PSA-PFS and radiological-PFS were also calculated to identify potential biomarkers for predicting androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) and taxane-based chemotherapy resistance in mCRPC. RESULTS: CTC detection rates were 75.5%, 95.3%, and 98.0% for LPCa, mHSPC, and mCRPC, respectively. In LPCa, PSMA [hazard ratio (HR), 3.35; P = 0.028) and PSA mRNA (HR, 1.42; P = 0.047] expressions were associated with BCR. Patients with mHSPC with high PSMA (HR, 4.26; P = 0.020) and PSA mRNA (HR, 3.52; P = 0.042) expressions showed significantly worse mCRPC-PFS rates than those with low expression. Increased PSA and PSMA mRNA expressions were significantly associated with shorter PSA-PFS and radiological PFS in mCPRC, indicating an association with drug resistance. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA and PSA mRNA expressions are associated with BCR in LPCa. In advanced prostate cancer, PSMA and PSA mRNA can also predict rapid progression from mHSPC to mCRPC and ARSI or taxane-based chemotherapy resistance.

Variation in management of lymph node positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy within a statewide quality improvement consortium.

BACKGROUND: Patients with lymph node positive (pN+) disease found at the time of radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer (CaP) are at high risk of disease persistence and progression. Contemporary management trends of pN+ CaP are not well described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2012 and 2023 with cN0/pN+ disease were identified. The primary outcome was to evaluate patient and practice-level factors associated with time to secondary post-RP treatment. Secondary outcomes included practice-level variation in management of pN+ CaP and rates of secondary treatment modality. To assess factors associated with secondary treatment, a Cox proportional hazards model of a 60-day landmark analysis was performed. RESULTS: We identified 666 patients with pN+ disease. Overall, 66% underwent secondary treatment within 12 months post-RP. About 19% of patients with detectable post-RP PSA did not receive treatment. Of patients receiving secondary treatment after 60-days post-RP, 34% received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, 27% received radiation (RT) alone, 36% received combination, and 4% received other systemic therapies. In the multivariable model, pathologic grade group (GG)3 (HR 1.5; 95%CI: 1.05-2.14), GG4-5 (HR 1.65; 95%CI: 1.16-2.34), positive margins (HR 1.46; 95%CI: 1.13-1.88), and detectable postoperative PSA ≥0.1 ng/ml (HR 3.46; 95%CI: 2.61-4.59) were significantly associated with secondary post-RP treatment. There was wide variation in adjusted practice-level 12-month secondary treatment utilization (28%-79%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority pN+ patients receive treatment within 12 months post-RP which was associated with high-risk pathological features and post-RP PSA. Variation in management of pN+ disease highlights the uncertainty regarding the optimal management. Understanding which patients will benefit from secondary treatment, and which type, will be critical to minimize variation in care.

Using joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data to investigate the causal effect of salvage therapy after prostatectomy.

Prostate cancer patients who undergo prostatectomy are closely monitored for recurrence and metastasis using routine prostate-specific antigen measurements. When prostate-specific antigen levels rise, salvage therapies are recommended in order to decrease the risk of metastasis. However, due to the side effects of these therapies and to avoid over-treatment, it is important to understand which patients and when to initiate these salvage therapies. In this work, we use the University of Michigan Prostatectomy Registry Data to tackle this question. Due to the observational nature of this data, we face the challenge that prostate-specific antigen is simultaneously a time-varying confounder and an intermediate variable for salvage therapy. We define different causal salvage therapy effects defined conditionally on different specifications of the longitudinal prostate-specific antigen history. We then illustrate how these effects can be estimated using the framework of joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data. All proposed methodology is implemented in the freely-available R package JMbayes2.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part III: Salvage Therapy After Radiotherapy or Focal Therapy, Pelvic Nodal Recurrence and Oligometastasis, and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part III of a three-part series focusing on evaluation and management of suspected non-metastatic recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, evaluation and management of regional recurrence, management for molecular imaging metastatic recurrence, and future directions. Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and deliberate efforts for multidisciplinary care in prostate cancer will be required to optimize and improve the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients treated with salvage therapies in the future.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part I: Introduction and Treatment Decision-Making at the Time of Suspected Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part I of a three-part series focusing on treatment decision-making at the time of suspected biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic BCR after RP and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing work in the area of diagnostic tools (particularly imaging), biomarkers, radiation delivery, and biological manipulation with the evolving armamentarium of therapeutic agents will undoubtedly present new opportunities for patients to experience long-term control of their cancer while minimizing toxicity.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part II: Treatment Delivery for Non-metastatic Biochemical Recurrence After Primary Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part II of a three-part series focusing on treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing and personalizing the approach to salvage therapy remains an ongoing area of work in the field of genitourinary oncology and represents an area of research and clinical care that requires well-coordinated, multi-disciplinary efforts.

External Validation of a Digital Pathology-based Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Architecture in the NRG/RTOG 9902 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk stratification is critical to guide management decisions in localized prostate cancer (PCa). Previously, we had developed and validated a multimodal artificial intelligence (MMAI) model generated from digital histopathology and clinical features. Here, we externally validate this model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. OBJECTIVE: To externally validate the MMAI model on men with high-risk or locally advanced PCa treated and followed as part of a phase 3 randomized control trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Our validation cohort included 318 localized high-risk PCa patients from NRG/RTOG 9902 with available histopathology (337 [85%] of the 397 patients enrolled into the trial had available slides, of which 19 [5.6%] failed due to poor image quality). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Two previously locked prognostic MMAI models were validated for their intended endpoint: distant metastasis (DM) and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM). Individual clinical factors and the number of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk features served as comparators. Subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) was reported per standard deviation increase of the score with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using Fine-Gray or Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The DM and PCSM MMAI algorithms were significantly and independently associated with the risk of DM (sHR [95% CI] = 2.33 [1.60-3.38], p < 0.001) and PCSM, respectively (sHR [95% CI] = 3.54 [2.38-5.28], p < 0.001) when compared against other prognostic clinical factors and NCCN high-risk features. The lower 75% of patients by DM MMAI had estimated 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 4% and 7%, and the highest quartile had average 5- and 10-yr DM rates of 19% and 32%, respectively (p < 0.001). Similar results were observed for the PCSM MMAI algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: We externally validated the prognostic ability of MMAI models previously developed among men with localized high-risk disease. MMAI prognostic models further risk stratify beyond the clinical and pathological variables for DM and PCSM in a population of men already at a high risk for disease progression. This study provides evidence for consistent validation of our deep learning MMAI models to improve prognostication and enable more informed decision-making for patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY: This paper presents a novel approach using images from pathology slides along with clinical variables to validate artificial intelligence (computer-generated) prognostic models. When implemented, clinicians can offer a more personalized and tailored prognostic discussion for men with localized prostate cancer.

A longitudinal mixed-methods study of pathology explanation clinics in patients with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the role of pathology explanation clinics (PECs) in prostate cancer care and determine their impact on patients, urologic oncologists, and quality of care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 10 patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were conducted before and after a PEC pilot and at the 1- and 6-month follow-up visits. Information about participants' cancer knowledge and anxiety were collected quantitatively. Documented pathologist communications and proper review of outside biopsy slides were collected. Semistructured interviews were also completed with participating urologic oncologists following the pilot. RESULTS: Pathology explanation clinics improved participants' understanding of their diagnosis, cognitively and emotionally supporting them first in their urologic oncology visit and later in making an informed treatment decision. Mean knowledge scores were high, and a minority of participants had prostate cancer anxiety. Urologic oncologists noted improved understanding and reduced anxiety among participants, enabling nuanced conversations about prognosis and management during the visit. By ensuring review of outside biopsy slides and communication of clinically significant or unexpected diagnoses, PECs supported high-quality care and patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: In this small pilot, PECs positively affected patients with prostate cancer, their clinicians, and the overall care system. Additional studies in larger populations and diverse settings will be useful.

National Long-term Survival Estimates After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine survival and disease control outcomes, including metastasis-related survival outcomes, in a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of men with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy from 2005 to 2015 with follow-up through 2019 in the Veterans Health Administration. We defined biochemical recurrence (BCR) as a prostate-specific antigen ≥0.2 ng/mL. We used a validated natural language processing encoded dataset to identify incident metastatic prostate cancer. We estimated overall survival from time of surgery, time of BCR, and time of first metastasis using the Kaplan-Meier method. We then estimated time from surgery to BCR, BCR to metastatic disease, and prostate-cancer-specific survival from various time points using cumulative incidence considering competing risk of death. RESULTS: Of 21,992 men undergoing radical prostatectomy, we identified 5951 (27%) who developed BCR. Of men with BCR, 677 (11%) developed metastases. We estimated the 10-year cumulative incidence of BCR and metastases after BCR were 28% and 20%, respectively. Median overall survival after BCR was 14years, with 10-year survival of 70%. From the time of metastasis, median overall survival approached 7years, with 10-year overall survival of 34%. Prostate cancer-specific survival for the entire cohort at 10years was 94%. CONCLUSION: In this large contemporary national cohort, survival for men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer is longer than historical cohorts. When counseling patients and designing clinical studies, these updated estimates may serve as more reliable reflections of current outcomes.

The Impact of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging and Tumor Molecular Profiling on Risk Stratification, Treatment Choice, and Oncological Outcomes of Patients with Primary or Relapsed Prostate Cancer: An International Collaborative Review of the Existing Literature.

CONTEXT: The clinical introduction of next-generation imaging methods and molecular biomarkers ("radiogenomics") has revolutionized the field of prostate cancer (PCa). While the clinical validity of these tests has thoroughly been vetted, their clinical utility remains a matter of investigation. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence to date on the impact of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and tissue-based prognostic biomarkers, including Decipher, Prolaris, and Oncotype Dx, on the risk stratification, treatment choice, and oncological outcomes of men with newly diagnosed PCa or those with biochemical failure (BCF). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a quantitative systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (2010-2022) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement guidelines. The validated Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 scoring system was used to assess the risk of bias. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 148 studies (130 on PET and 18 on biomarkers) were included. In the primary PCa setting, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET imaging was not useful in improving T staging, moderately useful in improving N staging, but consistently useful in improving M staging in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) unfavorable intermediate- to very-high-risk PCa. Its use led to a management change in 20-30% of patients. However, the effect of these treatment changes on survival outcomes was not clear. Similarly, biomarkers in the pretherapy primary PCa setting increased and decreased the risk, respectively, in 7-30% and 32-36% of NCCN low-risk and 31-65% and 4-15% of NCCN favorable intermediate-risk patients being considered for active surveillance. A change in management was noted in up to 65% of patients, with the change being in line with the molecular risk-based reclassification, but again, the impact of these changes on survival outcomes remained unclear. Notably, in the postsurgical primary PCa setting, biomarker-guided adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) was associated with improved oncological control: Δ↓ 2-yr BCF by 22% (level 2b). In the BCF setting, the data were more mature. PSMA PET was consistently useful in improving disease localization-Δ↑ detection for T, N, and M staging was 13-32%, 19-58%, and 9-29%, respectively. Between 29% and 73% of patients had a change in management. Most importantly, these management changes were associated with improved survival outcomes in three trials: Δ↑ 4-yr disease-free survival by 24.3%, Δ↑ 6-mo metastasis-free survival (MFS) by 46.7%, and Δ↑ androgen deprivation therapy-free survival by 8 mo in patients who received PET-concordant RT (level 1b-2b). Biomarker testing in these patients also appeared to be helpful in risk stratifying and guiding the use of early salvage RT (sRT) and concomitant hormonal therapy. Patients with high-genomic-risk scores benefitted from treatment intensification: Δ↑ 8-yr MFS by 20% with the use of early sRT and Δ↑ 12-yr MFS by 11.2% with the use of hormonal therapy alongside early sRT, while low-genomic-risk score patients did equally well with initial conservative management (level 3). CONCLUSIONS: Both PSMA PET imaging and tumor molecular profiling provide actionable information in the management of men with primary PCa and those with BCF. Emerging data suggest that radiogenomics-guided treatments translate into direct survival benefits for patients, however, additional prospective data are awaited. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we evaluated the utility of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography and tumor molecular profiling in guiding the care of men with prostate cancer (PCa). We found that these tests augmented risk stratification, altered management, and improved cancer control in men with a new diagnosis of PCa or for those experiencing a relapse.

Can MRI Help Inform Which Men With a History of Multifocal High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Atypical Small Acinar Proliferation Remain at an Elevated Risk for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

PURPOSE: We investigated the association of MRI findings in men with a previous diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) or multifocal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) with pathologic findings on repeat biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with ASAP/multifocal HGPIN undergoing a repeat biopsy in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry. We included men with and without an MRI after the index biopsy demonstrating ASAP/multifocal HGPIN but before the repeat biopsy. Men with an MRI prior to the index biopsy were excluded. We compared the proportion of men with ≥ GG2 CaP (Grade Group 2 prostate cancer) on repeat biopsy among the following groups with the χ2 test: no MRI, PIRADS (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) ≥ 4, and PIRADS ≤ 3. Multivariable models were used to estimate the adjusted association between MRI findings and ≥ GG2 CaP on repeat biopsy. RESULTS: Among the 207 men with a previous diagnosis of ASAP/multifocal HGPIN that underwent a repeat biopsy, men with a PIRADS ≥ 4 lesion had a higher proportion of ≥ GG2 CaP (56%) compared with men without an MRI (12%, P < .001). A lower proportion of men with PIRADS ≤ 3 lesions had ≥ GG2 CaP (3.0%) compared with men without an MRI (12%, P = .13). In the adjusted model, men with a PIRADS 4 to 5 lesion had higher odds (OR: 11.4, P < .001) of ≥ GG2 CaP on repeat biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a valuable diagnostic tool to triage which men with a history of ASAP or multifocal HGPIN on initial biopsy should undergo or avoid repeat biopsy without missing clinically significant CaP.

Analysis of the Tumor Immune Microenvironment (TIME) in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC) Reveals an M0 Macrophage-Enriched Subtype: An Exploration of Prognostic and Biological Characteristics of This Immune Phenotype.

There is a need to optimize the treatment of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) patients at high recurrence risk after nephrectomy. We sought to elucidate the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) of localized ccRCC and understand the prognostic and predictive characteristics of certain features. The discovery cohort was clinically localized patients in the TCGA-Kidney Renal Clear Cell Carcinoma (KIRC) project (n = 382). We identified an M0 macrophage-enriched cluster (n = 25) in the TCGA-KIRC cohort. This cluster's median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 40.4 and 45.3 months, respectively, but this was not reached in the others (p = 0.0003 and <0.0001, respectively). Gene set enrichment (GSEA) analysis revealed an enrichment of epithelial to mesenchymal transition and cell cycle progression genes within this cluster, and these patients also had a lower predicted response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) (4% vs. 20-34%). An M0-enriched cluster (n = 9) with shorter PFS (p = 0.0006) was also identified in the Clinical Proteomics Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC) cohort (n = 94). Through this characterization of the TIME in ccRCC, a cluster of patients defined by enrichment in M0 macrophages was identified that demonstrated poor prognosis and lower predicted ICB response. Pending further validation, this signature can identify localized ccRCC patients at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy and who may require therapeutic approaches beyond ICB monotherapy.

The effect of cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the renal function of patients undergoing radical cystectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard of care for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) undergoing radical cystectomy (RC). Cisplatin, however, can induce renal toxicity. Furthermore, RC is an independent risk factor for renal injury, with decreases in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of up to 6 mL/min/1.73 m2 reported at one year postoperatively. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of cisplatin-based NAC and RC on the renal function of patients undergoing both. METHODS: We analyzed a multicenter database of patients with MIBC, all of whom received cisplatin-based NAC prior to RC. eGFR values were collected at time points T1 (before NAC), T2 (after NAC but before RC), and T3 (one year post-RC). eGFR and proportion of patients with eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73m2 (chronic kidney disease [CKD] stage ≥3) were compared between these time points. As all patients in this dataset had received NAC, we identified a retrospective cohort of patients from one institution who had undergone RC during the same time period without NAC for context. RESULTS: We identified 234 patients with available renal function data. From T1 to T3, there was a mean decline in eGFR of 17% (13 mL/min/1.73 m2) in the NAC cohort and an increase in proportion of patients with stage ≥3 CKD from 27% to 50%. The parallel cohort of patients who did not receive NAC was comprised of 236 patients. The mean baseline eGFR in this cohort was lower than in the NAC cohort (66 vs. 75 mL/min/1.73 m2). The mean eGFR decline in this non-NAC cohort from T1 to T3 was 6% (4 mL/min/1.73 m2), and the proportion of those with stage ≥3 CKD increased from 37% to 51%. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of NAC prior to RC was associated with a 17% decline in eGFR and a nearly doubled incidence of stage ≥3 CKD at one year after RC. Patients who underwent RC without NAC had a higher rate of stage ≥3 CKD at baseline but appeared to have less renal function loss at one year.

Comparing Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy in Historical and Contemporary Practice.

PURPOSE: Modifications to surgical technique, particularly the widespread adoption of robotic surgery, have been proposed to improve functional recovery after prostate cancer surgery. However, rigorous comparison of men in historical vs contemporary practice to evaluate the cumulative effect of these changes on urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared prospectively collected patient-reported urinary and sexual function from historical (PROSTQA [Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction With Treatment Quality Assessment study], n=235) and contemporary (MUSIC-PRO [Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Patient Reported Outcome] registry, n=1,215) cohorts at the University of Michigan to understand whether modern techniques have resulted in functional improvements for men undergoing prostate cancer surgery. RESULTS: We found significant differences in baseline function, with better urinary (median [IQR]; 100 [93.8-100] vs 93.8 [85.5-100], P < .001) and sexual scores (median [IQR]; 83.3 [66.7-100] vs 74.4 [44.2-87.5], P < .001) prior to treatment in PROSTQA compared to MUSIC-PRO patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the pattern of urinary incontinence recovery after surgery from 6-24 months between groups (P = .14). However, men in the contemporary MUSIC-PRO group did have significantly better recovery of sexual function compared to men in the historical PROSTQA group (P < .0001). Further, we found that contemporary practice consists of men with more unfavorable demographic and clinical characteristics compared to historical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the widespread alterations in prostate cancer surgery over the past 2 decades have yielded improvements in sexual, but not urinary, function recovery.

2022 Update on Prostate Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Factors-A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Understanding the epidemiology and risk factors of the disease is paramount to improve primary and secondary prevention strategies. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and summarize the current evidence on the descriptive epidemiology, large screening studies, diagnostic techniques, and risk factors of PCa. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PCa incidence and mortality rates for 2020 were obtained from the GLOBOCAN database of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A systematic search was performed in July 2022 using PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE biomedical databases. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022359728). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Globally, PCa is the second most common cancer, with the highest incidence in North and South America, Europe, Australia, and the Caribbean. Risk factors include age, family history, and genetic predisposition. Additional factors may include smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and occupational factors. As PCa screening has become more accepted, newer approaches such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biomarkers have been implemented to identify patients who are likely to harbor significant tumors. Limitations of this review include the evidence being derived from meta-analyses of mostly retrospective studies. CONCLUSIONS: PCa remains the second most common cancer among men worldwide. PCa screening is gaining acceptance and will likely reduce PCa mortality at the cost of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Increasing use of MRI and biomarkers for the detection of PCa may mitigate some of the negative consequences of screening. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prostate cancer (PCa) remains the second most common cancer among men, and screening for PCa is likely to increase in the future. Improved diagnostic techniques can help reduce the number of men who need to be diagnosed and treated to save one life. Avoidable risk factors for PCa may include factors such as smoking, diet, physical activity, specific medications, and certain occupations.