The prostate cancer detection rates of CEUS-targeted versus MRI-targeted versus systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in biopsy-naïve men: a prospective, comparative clinical trial using the same patients.

BACKGROUND: The current standard for Prostate Cancer (PCa) detection in biopsy-naïve men consists of 10-12 systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance. This approach leads to underdiagnosis and undergrading of significant PCa while insignificant PCa may be overdiagnosed. The recent developments in MRI and Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) imaging have sparked an increasing interest in PCa imaging with the ultimate goal of replacing these "blind" systematic biopsies with reliable imaging-based targeted biopsies. METHODS/DESIGN: In this trial, we evaluate and compare the PCa detection rates of multiparametric (mp)MRI-targeted biopsies, CEUS-targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance in the same patients. After informed consent, 299 biopsy-naïve men will undergo mpMRI scanning and CEUS imaging 1 week prior to the prostate biopsy procedure. During the biopsy procedure, a systematic transrectal 12-core biopsy will be performed by one operator blinded for the imaging results and targeted biopsy procedure. Subsequently a maximum of 4 CEUS-targeted biopsies and/or 4 mpMRI-targeted biopsies of predefined locations determined by an expert CEUS reader using quantification techniques and an expert radiologist, respectively, will be taken by a second operator using an MRI-US fusion device. The primary outcome is the detection rate of PCa (all grades) and clinically significant PCa (defined as Gleason score ≥7) compared between the three biopsy protocols. DISCUSSION: This trial compares the detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa, between both traditional systematic biopsies and targeted biopsies based on predefined regions of interest identified by two promising imaging technologies. It follows published recommendations on study design for the evaluation of imaging guided prostate biopsy techniques, minimizing bias and allowing data pooling. It is the first trial to combine mpMRI imaging and advanced CEUS imaging with quantification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects registration number NL52851.018.15, registered on 3 Nov 2015. Clinicaltrials.gov database registration number NCT02831920 , retrospectively registered on 5 July 2016.

Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project.

BACKGROUND: Whole-gland extirpation or irradiation is considered the gold standard for curative oncological treatment for localized prostate cancer, but is often associated with sexual and urinary impairment that adversely affects quality of life. This has led to increased interest in developing therapies with effective cancer control but less morbidity. We aimed to provide details of physician consensus on patient selection for prostate focal therapy (FT) in the era of contemporary prostate cancer management. METHODS: We undertook a four-stage Delphi consensus project among a panel of 47 international experts in prostate FT. Data on three main domains (role of biopsy/imaging, disease and patient factors) were collected in three iterative rounds of online questionnaires and feedback. Consensus was defined as agreement in ⩾80% of physicians. Finally, an in-person meeting was attended by a core group of 16 experts to review the data and formulate the consensus statement. RESULTS: Consensus was obtained in 16 of 18 subdomains. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is a standard imaging tool for patient selection for FT. In the presence of an mpMRI-suspicious lesion, histological confirmation is necessary prior to FT. In addition, systematic biopsy remains necessary to assess mpMRI-negative areas. However, adequate criteria for systematic biopsy remains indeterminate. FT can be recommended in D'Amico low-/intermediate-risk cancer including Gleason 4+3. Gleason 3+4 cancer, where localized, discrete and of favorable size represents the ideal case for FT. Tumor foci <1.5 ml on mpMRI or <20% of the prostate are suitable for FT, or up to 3 ml or 25% if localized to one hemi-gland. Gleason 3+3 at one core 1mm is acceptable in the untreated area. Preservation of sexual function is an important goal, but lack of erectile function should not exclude a patient from FT. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides a contemporary insight into expert opinion of patient selection for FT of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project.

PURPOSE: To codify the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the interrogation of prostate neoplasia (PCa) in clinical practice and focal therapy (FT). METHODS: An international collaborative consensus project was undertaken using the Delphi method among experts in the field of PCa. An online questionnaire was presented in three consecutive rounds and modified each round based on the comments provided by the experts. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to discuss and finalize the consensus results. RESULTS: mpMRI should be performed in patients with prior negative biopsies if clinical suspicion remains, but not instead of the PSA test, nor as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or mpMRI-targeted biopsies only. It is not recommended to use a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner without an endorectal or pelvic phased-array coil. mpMRI should be performed following standard biopsy-based PCa diagnosis in both the planning and follow-up of FT. If a lesion is seen, MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies should be performed for FT planning. Systematic biopsies are still required for FT planning in biopsy-naïve patients and for patients with residual PCa after FT. Standard repeat biopsies should be taken during the follow-up of FT. The final decision to perform FT should be based on histopathology. However, these consensus statements may differ for expert centers versus non-expert centers. CONCLUSIONS: The mpMRI is an important tool for characterizing and targeting PCa in clinical practice and FT. Standardization of acquisition and reading should be the main priority to guarantee consistent mpMRI quality throughout the urological community.

Surveillance following Focal Therapy interventions.

OBJECTIVE: Focal therapy (FT) is a tissuesparing treatment paradigm for localized prostate cancer (PCa) with the potential to improve functional outcomes while maintaining oncologic safety. This paper aims to provide an overview of important considerations and practical recommendations relating to the follow-up after FT. METHODS: Literature review of papers related to FT in PCa derived from Medline/Pubmed database. RESULTS: The recommended minimum follow-up period after FT is 5 years. Standard history taking should include: signs of disease progression, treatment-related complications and psychological aspects. Oncological outcome is based on serial prostate specific antigen monitoring, follow-up imaging (most commonly with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging) and repeat biopsies (systematic from entire gland or targeted from treated zone). Significant PCa has been found at biopsy in up to 17% of patients after FT. Functional outcomes are evaluated using standardized questionnaires that relate to urinary function, erectile function and quality of life. A systematic review reports urinary continence in 83-100% of patients, erections sufficient for penetration in 54-100%. Outcomes differ between ablative energies and treatment templates. The most common side effects after FT are urinary retention (0-17%), urinary tract infection (UTI) (0-17%) and urinary stricture (0-5%). Rectal fistula is a rare complication occurring in up to 0.1-2% of patients. Clavien-Dindo Grade 3-4 complications are reported in 0-4% of patients. Type and rate vary with treatment modality. Complications should be reported using standardized reporting systems. Most data on FT outcomes come from small heterogeneous trials. Pooling of standardized data is necessary to advance the field of FT. CONCLUSION: Stringent follow-up after FT is required to confirm oncologic safety of the individual patient. Standardized data gathering and data pooling is necessary to evaluate whether FT can live up to its promise of improving functional outcomes while maintaining oncological safety.

Irreversible electroporation, a new modality in Focal Therapy for prostate cancer.

The extensive use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and improved imaging technologies have resulted in an increased diagnosis of prostate cancer. Early diagnosis is often accompanied by an increased number of localized (i.e. unifocal or unilateral), small-volume and low-grade prostate cancers. Focal therapy is an emerging treatment option in prostate cancer, targeting individual cancer areas while sparing important functional and anatomical urological structures. Irreversible electroporation is an innovative treatment modality in focal therapy based on the process of cell membrane electroporation limiting damage to adjacent tissue and vital structures. The first phase I-II trials in humans have shown the safety of IRE for focal ablative therapy of prostate cancer and showed encouraging results considering functional preservation. Histological analysis after IRE showed fibrosis without glandular ducts and necrotic tissue with sharp demarcation between unaffected prostatic glandular tissue and the ablation zone. Short-term oncological results are promising; however more data on long-term oncological outcomes are necessary. New studies with IRE and other focal treatment modalities are initiated to explore opportunities for focal therapy in prostate cancer and to optimize current treatment protocols.

Effect of chenodeoxycholic acid and the bile acid sequestrant colesevelam on glucagon-like peptide-1 secretion.

AIM: To evaluate the effects of the primary human bile acid, chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), and the bile acid sequestrant (BAS) colesevelam, instilled into the stomach, on plasma levels of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, glucose, insulin, C-peptide, glucagon, cholecystokinin and gastrin, as well as on gastric emptying, gallbladder volume, appetite and food intake. METHODS: On four separate days, nine patients with type 2 diabetes, and 10 matched healthy control subjects received bolus instillations of (i) CDCA, (ii) colesevelam, (iii) CDCA + colesevelam or (iv) placebo. At baseline and for 180 min after instillation, blood was sampled. RESULTS: In both the type 2 diabetes group and the healthy control group, CDCA elicited an increase in GLP-1 levels compared with colesevelam, CDCA + colesevelam and placebo, respectively (p < 0.05). The interventions did not affect plasma glucose, insulin or C-peptide concentrations in any of the groups. CDCA elicited a small increase in plasma insulin : glucose ratio compared with colesevelam, CDCA + colesevelam and placebo in both groups. Compared with colesevelam, CDCA + colesevelam and placebo, respectively, CDCA increased glucagon and delayed gastric emptying in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: CDCA increased GLP-1 and glucagon secretion, and delayed gastric emptying. We speculate that bile acid-induced activation of TGR5 on L cells increases GLP-1 secretion, which, in turn, may result in amplification of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion. Furthermore our data suggest that colesevelam does not have an acute effect on GLP-1 secretion in humans.