The Loss of Estradiol by Androgen Deprivation in Prostate Cancer Patients Shows the Importance of Estrogens in Males.

The role of estradiol (E2; an estrogen) in men needs to be more appreciated. In this review, we address the clinical situations that allow the study of the clinical consequences of E2 deficiency in men and discuss the effects of restoration of levels of this reproductive steroid hormone. In men with advanced prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), E2 is suppressed along with testosterone, leading to side effects affecting the quality of life. These include hot flashes, arthralgia, fatigue, mood changes, cognition problems, weight gain, bone loss, and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Transdermal E2 alone for ADT has shown equivalent testosterone suppression compared to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists while also preventing estrogen-deficiency side effects, including hot flashes and bone loss. Co-treatment of ADT with fetal estrogen estetrol (E4) has shown significant improvements of estrogen-deficiency symptoms. These observations emphasize the need to raise awareness of the importance of estrogens in men among clinicians and the lay public.

Cardiovascular Risk in Prostate Cancer Patients Using Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists or a Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist.

PURPOSE: Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are believed to have higher cardiovascular risk relative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. However, previous studies have not consistently demonstrated this. We used real-world clinical practice data to evaluate differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk between LHRH agonists compared to a GnRH antagonist following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) initiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data in the Decision Resources Group (now Clarivate) Real World Evidence repository, which represents >300 million US patients from 1991 to 2020 across all US regions. Patients with prostate cancer who received at least 1 injection of ADT were included. The risks of MACE and all-cause mortality as independent endpoints were evaluated, Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed, and associations between MACE and all available confounding risk factors were evaluated by Cox regression analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. RESULTS: A total of 45,059 men with prostate cancer treated with ADT were analyzed. Overall, the risks of MACE and all-cause mortality were slightly lower in the first year after ADT initiation compared to subsequent years. MACE risk was higher for the GnRH antagonist compared to LHRH agonists (HR=1.62; 95% CI 1.21-2.18, P = .001). The risk of all-cause mortality was also higher for the GnRH antagonist vs LHRH agonists (HR=1.87; 95% CI 1.39-2.51, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted incidence of MACE was higher for men treated with the GnRH antagonist compared to the LHRH agonists. The demographic and risk factors with the greatest impact on MACE risk were higher age, baseline metastasis, oncology (vs urology) setting, personal MACE history, antagonist (vs agonist), tobacco history, White (vs Black) race, and lower BMI.

The post-finasteride syndrome: possible etiological mechanisms and symptoms.

Finasteride and dutasteride, synthetic 5α-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) are recommended in many guidelines for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia/lower urinary tract symptoms and alopecia despite a variety of side effects like sexual, neurological, psychiatric, endocrinological, metabolic and ophthalmological dysfunctions and the increased incidence of high grade prostate cancer. The sexual side effects are common during the use of the drug but in a small subgroup of patients, they can persist after stopping the drug. This so-called post-finasteride syndrome has serious implications for the quality of life without a clear etiology or therapy. Three types of 5α-reductases are present in many organs in- and outside the brain where they can be blocked by the two 5ARIs. There is increasing evidence that 5ARIs not only inhibit the conversion of testosterone to 5α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in the prostate and the scalp but also in many other tissues. The lipophilic 5ARIs can pass the blood-brain barrier and might block many other neurosteroids in the brain with changes in the neurochemistry and impaired neurogenesis. Further research and therapeutic innovations are urgently needed that might cure or relieve these side effects. More awareness is needed for physicians to outweigh these health risks against the benefits of 5ARIs.

Testosterone suppression combined with high dose estrogen as potential treatment of SARS-CoV-2. A mini review.

Compared to females, males experience severe acute respiratory syndrome due to COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) more often, and also die more frequently from COVID-19. Testosterone has inhibitory and estrogens have favorable effects on the immune system. Both ACE2 and TMPRSS2 are specific host-cellular proteins stimulating viral entry in cells and SARS-CoV-2. Both proteins can be suppressed by inhibition of testosterone levels and by stimulation of estrogen levels. Therefore, both androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and estrogen therapy (ET) may decrease COVID-19 virus cell entry. Literature was searched for evidence of COVID-19 treatment benefits with estrogens, progesterone, androgen deprivation, and anti-androgens. Data supporting the effect of ADT on SARS-CoV-2 are sparse and inconsistent. The benefit of anti-androgen therapy is inconsistent. Data on the effect of ET were not found. Indirect estrogen data related to menopausal hormone therapy and hormonal contraception are favorable. In a small study, progesterone had some beneficial effects. The combination of ADT and ET (ADET) has never been studied as a treatment option for SARS-CoV-2. Based on the mode of action of the combination, it is hypothesized that ADET may be an effective and safe treatment of SARS-CoV-2, to be confirmed in a clinical trial.

Estetrol Prevents Hot Flushes and Improves Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer Treated with Androgen Deprivation Therapy: The PCombi Study.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is accompanied by side effects affecting health-related quality of life (HRQL). Objective: To assess the effects of the fetal estrogen estetrol (E4) on symptoms related to estrogen and androgen deficiency, and on HRQL measured using the validated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire. Design setting and participants: This was a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study in patients with advanced PCa. Intervention: Patients receiving ADT were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to daily treatment with a high dose of E4 (HDE4; n = 41) or placebo (n = 21) for 24 wk. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome was the effect of HDE4 cotreatment on hot flushes (HFs). Secondary outcomes were the Q-Man questionnaire for evaluation of the effect on estrogen and androgen deficiency symptoms, and the FACT-P questionnaire for evaluating HRQL. Results and limitations: At 24 wk, the number of patients experiencing HFs was significantly lower in the HDE4 group than in the placebo group (14.3% vs 60.0%; p < 0.001). HDE4 treatment was associated with lower incidence of night sweats, arthralgia, and fatigue, but more nipple tenderness and gynecomastia. At 24 wk, the mean HRQL score favored HDE4 over placebo for the FACT-P total score (122.2 ± 12.3 vs 118.7 ± 19.7) and for several other FACT subscales. Conclusions: Daily HDE4 coadministration almost completely prevented HFs in patients with advanced PCa treated with ADT. HDE4 also had positive effects on HRQL and counteracted other estrogen deficiency symptoms caused by ADT. These data support the dual efficacy concept of ADT and HDE4 to improve HRQL and increase the antitumor effect of ADT. Patient summary: For patients on androgen deprivation therapy for advanced prostate cancer, cotreatment with a high dose of estetrol almost completely prevents the occurrence of hot flushes and improves quality of life and well-being, but nipple sensitivity and an increase in breast size may occur.

Maintaining bone health by estrogen therapy in patients with advanced prostate cancer: a narrative review.

The purpose of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer (PCa), using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa) or gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists, is to suppress the levels of testosterone. Since testosterone is the precursor of estradiol (E2), one of the major undesired effects of ADT is the concomitant loss of E2, causing among others an increased bone turnover and bone loss and an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Therefore, the guidelines for ADT indicate to combine ADT routinely with bone-sparing agents such as bisphosphonates, denosumab or selective estrogen receptor modulators. However, these compounds may have side effects and some require inconvenient parenteral administration. Co-treatment with estrogens is an alternative approach to prevent bone loss and at the same time, to avoid other side effects caused by the loss of estrogens, which is the topic explored in the present narrative review. Estrogens investigated in PCa patients include parenteral or transdermal E2, diethylstilbestrol (DES), and ethinylestradiol (EE) as monotherapy, or high-dose estetrol (HDE4) combined with ADT. Cardiovascular adverse events have been reported with parenteral E2, DES and EE. Encouraging effects on bone parameters have been obtained with transdermal E2 (tE2) and HDE4, in the tE2 development program (PATCH study), and in the LHRHa/HDE4 co-treatment study (PCombi), respectively. Confirmation of the beneficial effects of estrogen therapy with tE2 or HDE4 on bone health in patients with advanced PCa is needed, with special emphasis on bone mass and fracture rate.

Remote surgical education using synthetic models combined with an augmented reality headset.

Objective: The objective was to investigate the use of an augmented reality headset to remotely train clinicians on medical devices using anatomic models. Design: Disease-specific phantoms were developed to train physicians in mpMRI-guided fusion prostate biopsy, brachytherapy, and rectal spacer insertion. Training was remotely demonstrated using 1-way virtual video conferencing format. Participants responded to an educational content survey. A heads-up display with software and augmented reality was used for remote 2-way training with the proctor and student using on their own phantoms. Setting: The virtual video meeting took place during a prostate cancer conference in 2020, while the augmented reality training occurred in 2021. The proctor and student wore a heads-up display containing a projector and webcam where the ultrasound image was displayed onto a see-through optic along with the physician's hands. The heads-up display allowed the proctor to teach by line-of-sight while the student watched and repeated the steps. Participants: Faculty with expertise with the medical devices used in these procedures provided training to urologists unfamiliar with these techniques. Results: Participants responded that the 1-way training on the phantoms was realistic and mimicked human tissue. A total of 70.9% requested more training or training on the phantoms. The remote training platform was successfully beta tested at the 2 locations in transperineal prostate biopsy and rectal spacer insertion. Conclusion: Remote training using augmented reality eliminates the need for travel. For training programs and workshops, this technology may mitigate the risk of infectious exposures, reduce training cost, and increase proctor availability, allowing training from their own institution or clinic.This investigation qualifies for the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competency in medical knowledge.

A Prospective Multicenter Comparison Study of Risk-adapted Ultrasound-directed and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-naïve Men.

BACKGROUND: European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-adjusted biopsy strategy for early detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. It remains unclear which strategy is most effective. Therefore, we evaluated two risk assessment pathways commonly used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of a risk-based ultrasound (US)-directed pathway (Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator [RPCRC] #3; US volume assessment) and a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed pathway. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective multicenter study (MR-PROPER) with 1:1 allocation among 21 centers (US arm in 11 centers, MRI arm in ten). Biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer (age ≥50 yr, prostate-specific antigen 3.0-50 ng/ml, ± abnormal digital rectal examination) were included. INTERVENTION: Biopsy-naïve men with elevated risk of prostate cancer, determined using RPCRC#3 in the US arm and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores of 3-5 in the MRI arm, underwent systematic biopsies (US arm) or targeted biopsies (MRI arm). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the proportion of men with grade group (GG) ≥2 cancer. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of biopsies avoided and GG 1 cancers detected. Categorical (nonparametric) data were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1965 men were included in the intention-to-treat population (US arm n = 950, MRI arm n = 1015). The US and MRI pathways detected GG ≥2 cancers equally well (235/950, 25% vs 239/1015, 24%; difference 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.6% to 5.0%; p = 0.5). The US pathway detected more GG 1 cancers than the MRI pathway (121/950, 13% vs 84/1015, 8.3%; difference 4.5%, 95% CI 1.8-7.2%; p < 0.01). The US pathway avoided fewer biopsies than the MRI pathway (403/950, 42% vs 559/1015, 55%; difference -13%, 95% CI -17% to -8.3%; p < 0.01). Among men with elevated risk, more GG ≥2 cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the US group (52% vs 43%; difference 9.2%, 95% CI 3.0-15%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Risk-adapted US-directed and MRI-directed pathways detected GG ≥2 cancers equally well. The risk-adapted US-directed pathway performs well for prostate cancer diagnosis if prostate MRI capacity and expertise are not available. If prostate MRI availability is sufficient, risk assessment should preferably be performed using MRI, as this avoids more biopsies and detects fewer cases of GG 1 cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: Among men with suspected prostate cancer, relevant cancers were equally well detected by risk-based pathways using either ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide biopsy of the prostate. If prostate MRI availability is sufficient, risk assessment should be performed with MRI to reduce unnecessary biopsies and detect fewer irrelevant cancers.

Clinical implementation of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging pathways for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pathways, as a tool in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer, in routine clinical practice. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of transrectal MRI-directed biopsy (TR-MRDB) and transperineal (TP)-MRDB in men with suspicious MRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed a two-centre cohort of consecutive biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer who underwent a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) compliant pre-biopsy MRI in a single, high-volume centre between 2015 and 2019 (Centre 1). Men with suspicious MRI scans underwent TR-MRDB in Centre 1 and TP-MRDB with additional random biopsies (RB) in Centre 2. The MRI and histopathology were assessed in the same institution (Centre 1). Outcomes included: (i) overall detection rates of Grade Group (GG) 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 cancer in men with suspicious MRI; (ii) Biopsy-avoidance due to non-suspicious MRI; and (iii) Cancer detection rates and biopsy-related complications between TR- and TP-MRDB. To reduce confounding bias for MRDB comparisons, inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for age, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, PSA density, and PI-RADS category. RESULTS: Of the 2597 men included, the overall GG 1, GG ≥2, and GG ≥3 prevalence was 8% (210/2597), 27% (697/2597), and 15% (396/2597), respectively. Biopsy was avoided in 57% (1488/2597) of men. After IPW, the GG 1, GG ≥2 and GG ≥3 detection rates after TR- and TP-MRDB were comparable at 24%, 57%, and 32%; and 18%, 64%, and 38%, respectively; with mean differences of -5.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] -13% to 1.4%), 6.1% (95% CI -2.1% to 14%), and 5.7% (95% CI -1.7% to 13%). Complications were similar in TR-MRDB (0.50%) and TP-MRDB with RB (0.62%; mean difference 0.11%, 95% CI -0.87% to 1.1%). CONCLUSION: This high-volume, two-centre study shows pre-biopsy MRI as a decision tool is implementable in daily clinical practice. Compared to recent trials, a substantially higher biopsy avoidance rate was achieved without compromising GG ≥2/GG ≥3 detection and coinciding with lower over detection rates of GG 1 cancer. Prostate cancer detection and complication rates were comparable for TR- and TP-MRDB.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 4: Transperineal Magnetic Resonance-Ultrasound Fusion Guided Biopsy Using Local Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy (MFGB) is an increasingly popular technique due to increasing rates of biopsy-related infections. However, its widespread implementation has been hampered by the supposed necessity of epidural or general anesthesia. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the technique, feasibility, and results of transperineal MFGB under local anesthesia, in an ambulatory setting without the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This single-center study enrolled consecutive biopsy-naïve men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer into a prospective database between November 2015 and November 2020. Men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 scores 3-5 underwent transperineal MFGB. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Transperineal MFGB was performed in an ambulatory setting under local anesthesia by a single operator. MEASUREMENTS: Procedure-associated adverse events were recorded. Patient discomfort during both the local anesthesia and the biopsy procedure was determined using a visual analogic scale (0-10). Detection rates of grade group (GG) ≥2 prostate cancer and the proportion of men with GG 1 cancer were assessed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1097 eligible men underwent transperineal MFGB. The complication rate was 0.73% (8/1097); complications comprised five (0.46%) urinary tract infections including one hospitalization and three (0.27%) urinary retentions. In 735 men, the median pain scores were 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-3) for the local anesthesia procedure and 1 (IQR 0-2) for the biopsy. Prostate cancer was detected in 84% (926/1097) of men; 66% (723/1097) had GG ≥2 and 19% (203/1097) GG 1. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal MFGB can safely be performed as an outpatient procedure under local anesthesia in an ambulatory setting. The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer is high, and biopsy is well tolerated. Although no antibiotic prophylaxis was used, the rate of infectious complications is practicably negligible. PATIENT SUMMARY: This article shows how tissue samples (biopsies) can accurately be obtained from suspicious regions seen on prostate magnetic resonance imaging via needles inserted in the perineum (skin between the scrotum and the anus) in men with suspected prostate cancer. This technique appears to be very well tolerated under local anesthesia and has a lower risk of infection without antibiotic prophylaxis than the more common biopsy route through the rectum, with antibiotics.

Estetrol Cotreatment of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Infiltrating or Metastatic, Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase II Trial (PCombi).

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists can be improved. OBJECTIVE: To assess safety, the frequency and severity of hot flushes (HFs), bone health, and antitumor effects of high-dose estetrol (HDE4) when combined with ADT. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted in advanced prostate cancer patients requiring ADT (the PCombi study). INTERVENTION: Patients receiving LHRH agonist treatment were randomized 2:1 to 40 mg HDE4 (n = 41) or placebo (n = 21) cotreatment for 24 wk. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Coprimary endpoints were frequency/severity of HFs and levels of total and free testosterone (T). Secondary endpoints included assessments of bone metabolism (osteocalcin and type I collagen telopeptide [CTX1]), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). Efficacy analysis was based on the selected per-protocol (PP) population. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 62 patients included in the study, 57 were suitable for a PP analysis (37 HDE4; 20 placebo). No E4-related serious cardiovascular adverse events occurred at 24 wk. Weekly HFs were reported by 13.5% of patients with HDE4 and 60.0% with placebo (p < 0.001). Daily HFs occurred in 5.9% versus 55%. Bone turnover parameters decreased significantly with HDE4 (p < 0.0001). Total and free T decreased earlier (p < 0.05), and free T was suppressed further (p < 0.05). PSA suppression was more profound and earlier (p < 0.005). FSH levels were suppressed by 98% versus 57% (p < 0.0001). Estrogenic side effects were nipple sensitivity (34%) and gynecomastia (17%). CONCLUSIONS: HDE4 cotreatment of ADT patients with advanced prostate cancer was well tolerated, and no treatment-related cardiovascular adverse events were observed at 24 wk. HFs and bone turnover were substantially reduced. Suppression of free T, PSA, and FSH was more rapid and profound, suggesting enhanced disease control by HDE4 cotreatment. Larger and longer-lasting studies are needed to confirm the results of the study reported here. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cotreatment of androgen deprivation therapy with high-dose estetrol in advanced prostate cancer patients results in fewer occurrences of hot flushes, bone protection, and other antitumor benefits. Nipple sensitivity and gynecomastia may occur as side effects.

Automated Bone Scan Index as an Imaging Biomarker to Predict Overall Survival in the Zometa European Study/SPCG11.

BACKGROUND: Owing to the large variation in treatment response among patients with high-risk prostate cancer, it would be of value to use objective tools to monitor the status of bone metastases during clinical trials. Automated Bone Scan Index (aBSI) based on artificial intelligence has been proposed as an imaging biomarker for the quantification of skeletal metastases from bone scintigraphy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how an increase in aBSI during treatment may predict clinical outcome in a randomised controlled clinical trial including patients with high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively selected all patients from the Zometa European Study (ZEUS)/SPCG11 study with image data of sufficient quality to allow for aBSI assessment at baseline and at 48-mo follow-up. Data on aBSI were obtained using EXINIboneBSI software, blinded for clinical data and randomisation of zoledronic acid treatment. Data on age, overall survival (OS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at baseline and upon follow-up were available from the study database. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Association between clinical parameters and aBSI increase during treatment was evaluated using Cox proportional-hazards regression models, Kaplan-Meier estimates, and log-rank test. Discrimination between prognostic variables was assessed using the concordance index (C-index). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In this cohort, 176 patients with bone metastases and a change in aBSI from baseline to follow-up of ≤0.3 had a significantly longer median survival time than patients with an aBSI change of >0.3 (p<0.0001). The increase in aBSI was significantly associated with OS (p<0.01 and C-index=0.65), while age and PSA change were not. CONCLUSIONS: The aBSI used as an objective imaging biomarker predicted outcome in prostate cancer patients in the ZEUS/SPCG11 study. An analysis of the change in aBSI from baseline to 48-mo follow-up represents a valuable tool for prognostication and monitoring of prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. PATIENT SUMMARY: The increase in the burden of skeletal metastases, as measured by the automated Bone Scan Index (aBSI), during treatment was associated with overall survival in patients from the Zometa European Study/SPCG11 study. The aBSI may be a useful tool also in monitoring prostate cancer patients with newly developed bone metastases.

Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest to implement multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) for biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: Primary objective was to compare and evaluate an MRI pathway and a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB) pathway in biopsy-naïve men with prostate-specific antigen levels of ≥3ng/ml. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION: A prospective, multicenter, powered, comparative effectiveness study included 626 biopsy-naïve patients (from February 2015 to February 2018). INTERVENTION: All patients underwent prebiopsy mpMRI followed by systematic TRUSGB. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI also underwent MRGB prior to TRUSGB. MRGB was performed using the in-bore approach. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥3+4) in any core. The main secondary objectives were the number of men who could avoid biopsy after nonsuspicious mpMRI, the number of biopsy cores taken, and oncologic follow-up. Differences in proportions were tested using McNemar's test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals for differences of proportions with matched pairs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The MRI pathway detected csPCa in 159/626 (25%) patients and insignificant prostate cancer (insignPCa) in 88/626 patients (14%). TRUSGB detected csPCa in 146/626 patients (23%) and insignPCa in 155/626 patients (25%). Relative sensitivity of the MRI pathway versus the TRUSGB pathway was 1.09 for csPCa (p=0.17) and 0.57 for insignPCa (p<0.0001). The total number of biopsy cores reduced from 7512 to 849 (-89%). The MRI pathway enabled biopsy avoidance in 309/626 (49%) patients due to nonsuspicious mpMRI. Immediate TRUSGB detected csPCa in only 3% (10/309) of these patients, increasing to 4% (13/309) with 1-yr follow-up. At the same time, TRUSGB would overdetect insignPCa in 20% (63/309). "Focal saturation" by four additional perilesional cores to MRGB improved the detection of csPCa in 21/317 (7%) patients. Compared with the literature, our proportion of nonsuspicious mpMRI cases is significantly higher (27-36% vs 49%) and that of equivocal cases is lower (15-28% vs 6%). This is probably due to the high-quality standard in this study. Therefore, a limitation is the duplication of these results in less experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: In biopsy-naïve men, the MRI pathway compared with the TRUSGB pathway results in an identical detection rate of csPCa, with significantly fewer insignPCa cases. In this high-quality standard study, almost half of men have nonsuspicious MRI, which is higher compared with other studies. Not performing TRUS biopsy is at the cost of missing csPCa only in 4%. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with MRI-guided biopsy against standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Our results show that patients can benefit from MRI because biopsy may be omitted in half of men, and fewer indolent cancers are detected, without compromising the detection of harmful disease. Men also need fewer needles to make a diagnosis.

Androgen-targeted therapy in men with prostate cancer: evolving practice and future considerations.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is foundational in the management of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) and has benefitted from a recent explosion in scientific advances. These include approval of new therapies that suppress testosterone (T) levels or inactivate its function, improvements in diagnostic and assay technologies, identification of lower therapeutic targets for T, discovery of the relevance of germline genetic mutations and identification of the benefits of sequential and combination therapies. METHODS: This review discusses the clinical profiles of the most up-to-date options for ADT, best practices for managing patients with advanced PCa and future directions in therapy. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Modern assay technologies reveal that bilateral orchiectomy results in a serum T level of approximately 15 ng/dL as compared to the historical definition of castration of T < 50 ng/dL. Evidence shows that lowering T levels to <20 ng/dL improves patient survival and delays disease progression. Routine monitoring of T in addition to prostate-specific antigen throughout treatment is important to ensure continuing efficacy of T suppression. New drugs that inhibit androgen signaling in combination with traditional ADT suppress T activity to near zero and have significantly improved patient survival. When personalizing ADT regimens physicians should consider a number of factors including initiation and duration of ADT, monitoring of T levels and PSA, the possibility of switching monotherapies if a patient does not achieve adequate T suppression, and consideration of intermittent vs. continuous ADT according to patients' lifestyles, comorbidities, risk factors and tolerance to treatment.

A Dose-Escalating Study With the Fetal Estrogen Estetrol in Healthy Men.

Context: Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists have replaced estrogens for endocrine treatment of advanced prostate cancer (PC) because of cardiovascular side effects. The fetal estrogen estetrol (E4) may be safer for PC treatment and is expected to decrease testosterone (T) and prevent estrogen deficiency. Objective: To investigate the safety and T-suppressive effect of E4 in healthy men. Design: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-escalating study. Setting: The study was conducted at a phase I clinical unit (QPS, Netherlands). Participants: Healthy male volunteers aged 40 to 70 years. Intervention(s): Three treatment cohorts of 15 volunteers with placebo (n = 5) and E4 (n = 10). Estetrol doses tested were 20, 40, and 60 mg/d. Subjects were treated for 4 weeks. Main Outcome Measures: Subjective side effects, pharmacodynamic effects on hemostatic variables, lipids, glucose, bone parameters, and endocrine parameters related to T metabolism. Results: Total and free T decreased dose-dependently and significantly. Nipple tenderness occurred in 40% and decrease of libido occurred in 30% of E4-treated men. The unwanted estrogenic effects on hemostasis were small, dose dependent, and in some cases significant. Lipid and bone parameters showed a favorable trend. Conclusion: The effect of E4 on testosterone levels is insufficient for standalone PC treatment. Taking all clinical and pharmacodynamic variables into consideration, a daily dose of 40 mg E4 seems safe for further evaluation of endocrine PC treatment in combination with LHRH analogs.