Evaluation of Outcomes Following Focal Ablative Therapy for Treatment of Localized Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients >70 Years: A Multi-institute, Multi-energy 15-Year Experience.

PURPOSE: In older patients who do not wish to undergo watchful waiting, focal therapy could be an alternative to the more morbid radical treatment. We evaluated the role of focal therapy in patients 70 years and older as an alternative management modality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 649 patients across 11 UK sites receiving focal high-intensity focused ultrasound or cryotherapy between June 2006 and July 2020 reported within the UK-based HEAT (HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment) and ICE (International Cryotherapy Evaluation) registries were evaluated. Primary outcome was failure-free survival, defined by need for more than 1 focal reablation, progression to radical treatment, development of metastases, need for systemic treatment, or prostate cancer-specific death. This was compared to the failure-free survival in patients undergoing radical treatment via a propensity score weighted analysis. RESULTS: Median age was 74 years (IQR: 72, 77) and median follow-up 24 months (IQR: 12, 41). Sixty percent had intermediate-risk disease and 35% high-risk disease. A total of 113 patients (17%) required further treatment. Sixteen had radical treatment and 44 required systemic treatment. Failure-free survival was 82% (95% CI: 76%-87%) at 5 years. Comparing patients who had radical therapy to those who had focal therapy, 5-year failure-free survival was 96% (95% CI: 93%-100%) and 82% (95% CI: 75%-91%) respectively (P < .001). Ninety-three percent of those in the radical treatment arm had received radiotherapy as their primary treatment with its associated use of androgen deprivation therapy, thereby leading to potential overestimation of treatment success in the radical treatment arm, especially given the similar metastases-free and overall survival rates seen. CONCLUSIONS: We propose focal therapy to be an effective management option for the older or comorbid patient who is unsuitable for or not willing to undergo radical treatment.

Predicting the Need for Biopsy to Detect Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-detected Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 Lesion: Development and Multinational External Validation of the Imperial Rapid Access to Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis Risk Score.

BACKGROUND: Although multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has high sensitivity, its lower specificity leads to a high prevalence of false-positive lesions requiring biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To develop and externally validate a scoring system for MRI-detected Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS)/Likert ≥3 lesions containing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The multicentre Rapid Access to Prostate Imaging and Diagnosis (RAPID) pathway included 1189 patients referred to urology due to elevated age-specific prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE); April 27, 2017 to October 25, 2019. INTERVENTION: Visual-registration or image-fusion targeted and systematic transperineal biopsies for an MRI score of ≥4 or 3 + PSA density ≥0.12 ng/ml/ml. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Fourteen variables were used in multivariable logistic regression for Gleason ≥3 + 4 (primary) and Gleason ≥4 + 3, and PROMIS definition 1 (any ≥4 + 3 or ≥6 mm any grade; secondary). Nomograms were created and a decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed. Models with varying complexity were externally validated in 2374 patients from six international cohorts. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The five-item Imperial RAPID risk score used age, PSA density, prior negative biopsy, prostate volume, and highest MRI score (corrected c-index for Gleason ≥3 + 4 of 0.82 and 0.80-0.86 externally). Incorporating family history, DRE, and Black ethnicity within the eight-item Imperial RAPID risk score provided similar outcomes. The DCA showed similar superiority of all models, with net benefit differences increasing in higher threshold probabilities. At 20%, 30%, and 40% of predicted Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer, the RAPID risk score was able to reduce, respectively, 11%, 21%, and 31% of biopsies against 1.8%, 6.2%, and 14% of missed csPCa (or 9.6%, 17%, and 26% of foregone biopsies, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The Imperial RAPID risk score provides a standardised tool for the prediction of csPCa in patients with an MRI-detected PIRADS/Likert ≥3 lesion and can support the decision for prostate biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this multinational study, we developed a scoring system incorporating clinical and magnetic resonance imaging characteristics to predict which patients have prostate cancer requiring treatment and which patients can safely forego an invasive prostate biopsy. This model was validated in several other countries.

Cancer Control Outcomes Following Focal Therapy Using High-intensity Focused Ultrasound in 1379 Men with Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Multi-institute 15-year Experience.

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy aims to treat areas of cancer to confer oncological control whilst reducing treatment-related functional detriment. OBJECTIVE: To report oncological outcomes and adverse events following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for treating nonmetastatic prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An analysis of 1379 patients with ≥6 mo of follow-up prospectively recorded in the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry from 13 UK centres (2005-2020) was conducted. Five or more years of follow-up was available for 325 (24%) patients. Focal HIFU therapy used a transrectal ultrasound-guided device (Sonablate; Sonacare Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Failure-free survival (FFS) was primarily defined as avoidance of no evidence of disease to require salvage whole-gland or systemic treatment, or metastases or prostate cancer-specific mortality. Differences in FFS between D'Amico risk groups were determined using a log-rank analysis. Adverse events were reported using Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median (interquartile range) age was 66 (60-71) yr and prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 (4.9-9.4) ng/ml with D'Amico intermediate risk in 65% (896/1379) and high risk in 28% (386/1379). The overall median follow-up was 32 (17-58) mo; for those with ≥5 yr of follow-up, it was 82 (72-94). A total of 252 patients had repeat focal treatment due to residual or recurrent cancer; overall 92 patients required salvage whole-gland treatment. Kaplan-Meier 7-yr FFS was 69% (64-74%). Seven-year FFS in intermediate- and high-risk cancers was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62-75%) and 65% (95% CI 56-74%; p = 0.3). Clavien-Dindo >2 adverse events occurred in 0.5% (7/1379). The median 10-yr follow-up is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Focal HIFU in carefully selected patients with clinically significant prostate cancer, with six and three of ten patients having, respectively, intermediate- and high-risk cancer, has good cancer control in the medium term. PATIENT SUMMARY: Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment to areas of prostate with cancer can provide an alternative to treating the whole prostate. This treatment modality has good medium-term cancer control over 7 yr, although 10-yr data are not yet available.

A Comparison of Prostate Cancer Detection between Visual Estimation (Cognitive Registration) and Image Fusion (Software Registration) Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: We compared clinically significant prostate cancer detection by visual estimation and image fusion targeted transperineal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter study included patients with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions undergoing visual estimation or image fusion targeted transperineal biopsy (April 2017-March 2020). Propensity score matching was performed using demographics (age and ethnicity), clinical features (prostate specific antigen, prostate volume, prostate specific antigen density and digital rectal examination), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging variables (number of lesions, PI-RADS® score, index lesion diameter, whether the lesion was diffuse and radiological T stage) and biopsy factors (number of cores, operator experience and anesthetic type). Matched groups were compared overall and by operator grade, PI-RADS score, lesion multiplicity, prostate volume and anesthetic type using targeted-only and targeted plus systematic histology. Multiple clinically significant prostate cancer thresholds were evaluated (primary: Gleason ≥3+4). RESULTS: A total of 1,071 patients with a median age of 67.3 years (IQR 61.3-72.4), median prostate specific antigen of 7.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.3-11.2) and 1,430 total lesions underwent targeted-only biopsies (visual estimation: 372 patients, 494 lesions; image fusion: 699 patients, 936 lesions). A total of 770 patients with a median age of 67.4 years (IQR 61-72.1), median prostate specific antigen of 7.1 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.6) and 919 total lesions underwent targeted plus systematic biopsies (visual estimation: 271 patients, 322 lesions; image fusion: 499 patients, 597 lesions). Matched comparisons demonstrated no overall difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection between visual estimation and image fusion (primary: targeted-only 54% vs 57.4%, p=0.302; targeted plus systematic 51.2% vs 58.2%, p=0.123). Senior urologists had significantly higher detection rates using image fusion (primary: targeted-only 45.4% vs 63.7%, p=0.001; targeted plus systematic 39.4% vs 64.5%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found no overall difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection, although image fusion may be superior in experienced hands.