A study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial investigating videoendoscopic radical inguinal lymphadenectomy versus open radical inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with penile cancer (VELRAD).

BACKGROUND: Penile cancer is a rare male genital malignancy. Surgical excision of the primary tumour is followed by radical inguinal lymphadenectomy if there is metastatic disease detected by biopsy, fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) or following sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with impalpable disease. However, radical inguinal lymphadenectomy is associated with a high morbidity rate, and there is increasing usage of a videoendoscopic approach as an alternative. METHODS: A pragmatic, UK-wide multicentre feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), comparing videoendoscopic radical inguinal lymphadenectomy versus open radical inguinal lymphadenectomy. Patients will be identified and recruited from supraregional multi-disciplinary team meetings (sMDT) and must be aged 18 or over requiring inguinal lymphadenectomy, with no contraindications to surgical intervention for their cancer. Participants will be followed up for 6 months following randomisation. The primary outcome is the ability to recruit patients for randomisation across all selected sites and the rate of loss to follow-up. Other outcomes include acceptability of the trial and intervention to patients and healthcare professionals assessed by qualitative research and obtaining resource utilisation information for health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: There are currently no other published RCTs comparing videoendoscopic versus open radical inguinal lymphadenectomy. Ongoing study is required to determine whether randomising patients to either procedure is feasible and acceptable to patients. The results of this study may determine the design of a subsequent trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov PRS registry, registration number NCT05592639. Date of registration: 13th October 2022, retrospectively registered.

Long-term outcomes of penile squamous cell carcinoma in men age ≤50 years old compared with men >50 years old from a single tertiary referral centre: a propensity score matched analysis.

Penile cancer (PeCa) is rare, and the oncological outcomes in younger men are unclear. We aimed to analyse and compare oncological outcomes of men age ≤50 years (y) and >50 years with PeCa. A retrospective analysis of men ≤50 y with penile squamous cell carcinoma managed at a tertiary centre was performed. A propensity score matched cohort of men >50 y was identified for comparison. Matching was according to tumour, nodal stage and the types of primary surgery. Overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and metastasis-free survivals (MFS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier plots and compared using log-rank tests. Between 2005-2020, 100 men ≤50 y (median (IQR) age, 46 y (40-49)) were identified and matched with 100 men >50 y (median (IQR) age, 65 y (59-73)). 10, 24, 32, 34 men age ≤50 y were diagnosed in 2005-2007, 2008-2012, 2013-2016 and 2017-2020 respectively. Median (IQR) follow-up was 53.5 (18-96) months. OS at 2 years: ≤50 y, 86%>50 y, 80.6%; 5 years: ≤50 y, 78.1%, >50 y, 63.1%; 10 years: ≤50 y, 72.3%, >50 y, 45.6% (p = 0.01). DSS at 2 years: ≤50 y, 87.2%>50 y, 87.8%; 5 years: ≤50 y, 80.9%>50 y, 78.2%; 10 years: ≤50 y, 78%, >50 y, 70.9% (p = 0.74). RFS was 93.1% in the ≤50 y group (vs. >50 y, 96.5%) at 2 year, and 90% (vs. >50 y, 88.5%) at 5 years, p = 0.81. Within the ≤50 y group, 2 years and 5 years MFS was 93% (vs. >50 y, 96.5%), and 89.5% (vs. >50 y, 92.7%) respectively, (p = 0.40). There were no statistical significance in DFS, RFS and MFS in men age ≤50 y and >50 y. PeCa in younger patients is fatal, public awareness and patient education are crucial for early detection and management.

Primary squamous cell carcinoma of the scrotum: Outcomes from a specialist center.

BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the scrotum is a rare and aggressive cancer. There are no established guidelines on the management of scrotal SCC. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical management and outcomes of scrotal SCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with primary scrotal SCC over a 10-year period was performed. The type of surgery, tumor stage and histological subtypes, recurrence rate and metastases, cancer-specific mortality (CSM), and other-cause mortality (OCM) were analyzed. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2022, a total of 10 men were identified with primary scrotal SCC. The median (interquartile, IQR) age was 65.5 (55-77) years. Wide local excision was performed in 9 patients and 1 patient underwent a total scrotectomy. The pathological T-stage was: pT1, n = 3; pT2, n = 1; pT3, n = 5 (50%); pT4, n = 1. Four patients had pathologically positive inguinal lymph nodes and 2 had distant metastatic disease at presentation. At a median (IQR) follow-up of 10.5 (4-31) months 5 patients died, of which 3 died from scrotal SCC. CONCLUSION: Scrotal SCC is extremely rare in the UK with only 10 primary cases identified in our center over the past 10 years. Surgical resection of the tumor and appropriate inguinal node staging are required due to a high proportion of cases which metastasize to the inguinal lymph nodes. PATIENT SUMMARY: Scrotal cancer is rare. 10 cases were diagnosed over 10 years at a single center. Around half had disease spread to the groin nodes or distant organs at presentation. Surgical resection was required in all patients. At the time of analysis, half of the patients are alive. Due to the rarity and aggressiveness of the cancer, management should be carried out within a specialist center.

Focal therapy versus radical prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy as primary treatment options for non-metastatic prostate cancer: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIMS: Focal therapy treats individual areas of tumour in non-metastatic prostate cancer in patients unsuitable for active surveillance. The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of focal therapy versus prostatectomy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov cohort health state transition model with four health states (stable disease, local recurrence, metastatic disease and death) was created, evaluating costs and utilities over a 10-year time horizon for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer. National Health Service (NHS) for England perspective was used, based on direct healthcare costs. Clinical transition probabilities were derived from prostate cancer registries in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, EBRT and focal therapy using cryotherapy (Boston Scientific) or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) (Sonablate). Propensity score matching was used to ensure that at-risk populations were comparable. Variables included age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group, maximum cancer core length (mm), T-stage and year of treatment. RESULTS: Focal therapy was associated with a lower overall cost and higher quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains than either prostatectomy or EBRT, dominating both treatment strategies. Positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) values confirm focal therapy as cost-effective versus the alternatives at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of £30,000/QALY. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses revealed consistent results. LIMITATIONS: Data used to calculate the transition probabilities were derived from a limited number of hospitals meaning that other potential treatment options were excluded. Limited data were available on later outcomes and none on quality of life data, therefore, literature-based estimates were used. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness modelling demonstrates use of focal therapy (cryotherapy or HIFU) is associated with greater QALY gains at a lower overall cost than either radical prostatectomy or EBRT, representing good value for money in the NHS.

Focal therapy can be used for the primary treatment of individual areas of cancer in those patients with prostate cancer whose disease has not spread (localized or non-metastatic prostate cancer) and whose disease is unsuitable for active monitoring. Focal therapy in these patients results in similar control of the cancer to more invasive therapies, such as surgical removal of the prostate and radiotherapy, with the benefit of fewer sexual, urinary and rectal side effects. This work considered whether using focal therapy (either freezing the cancer cells using cryotherapy or using high-intensity focused ultrasound [HIFU] to destroy cancer cells) was good value for money in the National Health Service (NHS) compared with surgery or radiotherapy. An economic model was developed which considered the relative impact of treatment with focal therapies, surgery or radiotherapy within the NHS in England. Previously collected information from people undergoing treatment for their prostate cancer, together with published literature and clinical opinion, was used within the model to predict the treatment pathway, costs incurred and the results of treatment in terms of patient benefits (effectiveness and quality of life). The model showed that focal therapy using either cryotherapy or HIFU was associated with a lower overall cost and higher patient benefit than either surgery or radiotherapy, indicating that focal therapy represents good value for money in the NHS.

Outcomes of penile sarcomatoid squamous cell carcinoma from a single tertiary referral centre: a matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the oncological survival outcomes of men with penile sarcomatoid squamous cell carcinoma (sSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of men with penile sSCC diagnosed between January 2010 and January 2020 in a single centre was conducted. Disease-specific (DSS), recurrence-free (RFS) and metastasis-free (MFS) survival were evaluated. Outcomes were compared with a non-sarcomatoid penile SCC cohort matched to age, type of surgery and tumour stage. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to estimate survival outcomes. RESULTS: In all, 1286 men were diagnosed with penile SCC during the study period and of these 38 (3%) men had sSCC. The median (interquartile range) age and follow-up was 70 (57-81) years and 16 (7-44) months, respectively. Operations performed included: circumcision, one (2.6%); wide local excision, four (10.5%); glansectomy, 11 (29%); partial penectomy, 10 (26%); subtotal/total penectomy, 12 (32%). The Kaplan-Meier estimated 12-, 24- and 36-month DSS was 62% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 67%), 43% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 67%) and 36% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 67%), respectively (P = 0.03). The Kaplan-Meier estimated 12- and 24-month RFS was 47% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 60%) and 28% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 55%), respectively (P = 0.01). The MFS was 52% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 62%) at 12 months and 37% (vs non-sarcomatoid, 57%) at 24 months (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Sarcomatoid differentiation was associated with a lower DSS, RFS and MFS. Due to the rarity of its incidence and aggressiveness, expert histological review and multidisciplinary management is required in a specialist penile cancer centre.

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.

Outcomes following radical inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer using a fascial-sparing surgical technique.

PURPOSE: To describe our surgical technique and report the oncological outcomes and complication rates using a fascial-sparing radical inguinal lymphadenectomy (RILND) technique for penile cancer patients with cN+ disease in the inguinal lymph nodes. METHODS: Over a 10-year period, 660 fascial-sparing RILND procedures were performed in 421 patients across two specialist penile cancer centres. The technique used a subinguinal incision with an ellipse of skin excised over any palpable nodes. Identification and preservation of the Scarpa's and Camper's fascia was the first step. All superficial inguinal nodes were removed en bloc under this fascial layer with preservation of the subcutaneous veins and fascia lata. The saphenous vein was spared where possible. Patient characteristics, oncologic outcomes and perioperative morbidity were retrospectively collected and analysed. Kaplan-Meier curves estimated the cancer-specific survival (CSS) functions after the procedure. RESULTS: Median (interquartile range, IQR) follow-up was 28 (14-90) months. A median (IQR) number of 8.0 (6.5-10.5) nodes were removed per groin. A total of 153 postoperative complications (36.1%) occurred, including 50 conservatively managed wound infections (11.9%), 21 cases of deep wound dehiscence (5.0%), 104 cases of lymphoedema (24.7%), 3 cases of deep vein thrombosis (0.7%), 1 case of pulmonary embolism (0.2%), and 1 case of postoperative sepsis (0.2%). The 3-year CSS was 86% (95%Confidence Interval [95% CI] 77-96), 83% (95% CI 72-92), 58% (95% CI 51-66), respectively, for the pN1, pN2 and pN3 patients (p < 0.001), compared to a 3-year CSS of 87% (95% CI 84-95) for the pN0 patients. CONCLUSION: Fascial-sparing RILND offers excellent oncological outcomes whilst decreasing the morbidity rates. Patients with more advanced nodal involvement had poorer survival rates, emphasizing the need for adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy.

Management of small testicular masses: outcomes from a single-centre specialist multidisciplinary team.

OBJECTIVES: To report the management outcomes of men with ≤20-mm small testicular masses (STMs) and to identify clinical and histopathological factors associated with malignancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of men managed at a single centre between January 2010 and December 2020 with a STM ≤20 mm in size was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 307 men with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 36 (30-44) years were included. Of these, 161 (52.4%), 82 (26.7%), 62 (20.2%) and 2 men (0.7%) underwent surveillance with interval ultrasonography (USS), primary excisional testicular biopsy (TBx) or primary radical orchidectomy (RO), or were discharged, respectively. The median (IQR) surveillance duration was 6 (3-18) months. The majority of men who underwent surveillance had lesions <5 mm (59.0%) and no lesion vascularity (67.1%) on USS. Thirty-three (20.5%) men undergoing surveillance had a TBx based on changes on interval USS or patient choice; seven (21.2%) were found to be malignant. The overall rate of malignancy in the surveillance cohort was 4.3%. The majority of men who underwent primary RO had lesions ≥10 mm (85.5%) and the presence of vascularity (61.7%) on USS. Nineteen men (23.2%) who underwent primary TBx (median lesion size 6 mm) had a malignancy confirmed on biopsy and underwent RO. A total of 88 men (28.7%) underwent RO, and malignancy was confirmed in 73 (83.0%) of them. The overall malignancy rate in the whole STM cohort was 23.8%. Malignant RO specimens had significantly larger lesion sizes (median [IQR] 11 [8-15] mm, vs benign: median [IQR] 8 [5-10] mm; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Small testicular masses can be stratified and managed based on lesion size and USS features. The overall malignancy rate in men with an STM was 23.8% (4.3% in the surveillance group). Surveillance should be considered in lesions <10 mm in size, with a TBx or frozen-section examination offered prior to RO in order to preserve testicular function.

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.

Conventional radical versus focal treatment for localised prostate cancer: a propensity score weighted comparison of 6-year tumour control.

BACKGROUND: For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies. METHODS: Following the eligibility criteria PSA < 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 7 and T-stage ≤ T2c, we included 830 radical (440 radiotherapy, 390 prostatectomy) and 530 focal therapy (cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) patients treated between 2005 and 2018 from multicentre registries in the Netherlands and the UK. A propensity score weighted (PSW) analysis was performed to compare failure-free survival (FFS), with failure defined as salvage treatment, metastatic disease, systemic treatment (androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy), or progression to watchful waiting. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Median (IQR) follow-up in each cohort was 55 (28-83) and 62 (42-83) months, respectively. RESULTS: At baseline, radical patients had higher PSA (10.3 versus 7.9) and higher-grade disease (31% ISUP 3 versus 11%) compared to focal patients. After PSW, all covariates were balanced (SMD < 0.1). 6-year weighted FFS was higher after radical therapy (80.3%, 95% CI 73.9-87.3) than after focal therapy (72.8%, 95% CI 66.8-79.8) although not statistically significant (p = 0.1). 6-year weighted OS was significantly lower after radical therapy (93.4%, 95% CI 90.1-95.2 versus 97.5%, 95% CI 94-99.9; p = 0.02). When compared in a three-way analysis, focal and LRP patients had a higher risk of treatment failure than EBRT patients (p < 0.001), but EBRT patients had a higher risk of mortality than focal patients (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of a cohort-based analysis in which residual confounders are likely to exist, we found no clinically relevant difference in cancer control conferred by focal therapy compared to radical therapy at 6 years.

Focal therapy compared to radical prostatectomy for non-metastatic prostate cancer: a propensity score-matched study.

INTRODUCTION: Focal therapy (FT) ablates areas of prostate cancer rather than treating the whole gland. We compared oncological outcomes of FT to radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Using prospective multicentre databases of 761 FT and 572 RP cases (November/2005-September/2018), patients with PSA < 20 ng/ml, Gleason

Assessment of Return to Baseline Urinary and Sexual Function Following Primary Focal Cryotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The oncological outcomes in men with clinically significant prostate cancer following focal cryotherapy are promising, although functional outcomes are under-reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of focal cryotherapy on urinary and sexual function, specifically assessing return to baseline function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between October 2013 and November 2016, 58 of 122 men who underwent focal cryotherapy for predominantly anterior clinically significant localised prostate cancer within a prospective registry returned patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires, which included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) questionnaires. INTERVENTION: Standard cryotherapy procedure using either the SeedNet or the Visual-ICE cryotherapy system. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome was return to baseline function of IPSS score and IIEF erectile function (EF) subdomain. Cumulative incidence and Cox-regression analyses were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Probability of returning to baseline IPSS function was 78% at 12 mo and 87% at both 18 and 24 mo, with recovery seen up to 18 mo. For IIEF (EF domain), the probability of returning to baseline function was 85% at 12 mo and 89% at both 18 and 24 mo, with recovery seen up to 18 mo. Only the preoperative IIEF-EF score was associated with a poor outcome (hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.93-0.999, p = 0.04). The main limitation was that only half of the patients returned their questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: In men undergoing primary focal cryotherapy, there is a high degree of preservation of urinary and erectile function with return to baseline function occurring from 3 mo and continuing up to 18 mo after focal cryotherapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In men who underwent focal cryotherapy for prostate cancer, approximately nine in 10 returned to their baseline urinary and sexual function. Keeping in mind that level 1 evidence and long-term data are still needed, in men who wish to preserve urinary and sexual function, focal cryotherapy may be considered an alternative treatment option to radical therapy.

Primary Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Male Proximal Urethra: Outcomes from a Single Centre.

BACKGROUND: Primary squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the male proximal urethra is an aggressive and rare urogenital malignancy. OBJECTIVE: To review the surgical management and outcomes for male proximal urethral SCCs within a single centre and to suggest an algorithm for the surgical management of these rare tumours. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective study of patients undergoing surgery for male proximal urethral SCC within a single tertiary academic centre managing rare genital tumours. Ten patients with a histological diagnosis of proximal urethral SCC were identified from an institutional database over a period of 10 yr with a median follow-up of 22.5 mo (standard deviation±25.77 mo). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Pathological staging, surgical treatment, and neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment were recorded. Complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and overall survival rates were recorded. Kaplan-Meier curves were used for overall survival. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 10 patients were identified of whom eight underwent panurethrectomy and radical prostatectomy. Radical inguinal lymphadenectomy was performed in five patients, which confirmed bilateral metastatic disease. Perioperative complications were reported in six patients (Clavien I and II). Within 6 mo of surgery, 90% of patients developed distant metastatic disease. Nine patients died of urethra cancer during the follow-up. One patient is still on follow-up. The median overall follow-up was 13.92 mo (range: 5-91 mo). At 5 yr, cancer-specific/overall survival was 10%. A limitation of this study is the retrospective design, which is unavoidable for such a rare disease. CONCLUSIONS: Radical surgery allows local disease control, but despite neo/adjuvant treatment, proximal urethral SCC is associated with poor survival outcomes and progression to distant metastatic disease within 6 mo. PATIENT SUMMARY: Proximal urethral squamous cell carcinoma is a rare cancer in men which is often detected late. Patients often present with problems such as voiding, urethral bleeding, or a palpable mass. Aggressive surgery allows local control, but despite this the overall survival is poor. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy can improve survival. Multicentric randomised trials are needed to identify the correct treatment modality.

Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate®500) (March/2007-November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6-12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. RESULTS: 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours.

An Exploratory Study of Dose Escalation vs Standard Focal High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for Treating Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer.

Objective: Analysis of treatment success regarding oncological recurrence rate between standard and dose escalation focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) of prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: In this analysis of our prospectively maintained HIFU (Sonablate® 500) database, 598 patients were identified who underwent a focal HIFU (Sonablate 500) between March 2007 and November 2016. Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing in the first year. Thereafter, PSA was measured 6-monthly or annually at least. Routine and for-cause multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) was conducted with biopsy for MRI suspicion of recurrence. Treatments were delivered in a quadrant or hemiablation fashion depending on the gland volume as well as tumor volume and location. Before mid-2015, standard focal HIFU was used (two HIFU blocks); after this date, some urologists conducted dose escalation focal HIFU (three overlapping HIFU blocks). Propensity matching was used to ensure two matched groups, leading to 162 cases for this analysis. Treatment failure was defined by any secondary treatment (systemic therapy, cryotherapy, radiotherapy, prostatectomy, or further HIFU), metastasis from prostate cancer without further treatment, tumor recurrence with Gleason score ≥7 (≥3 + 4) on prostate biopsy without further treatment, or prostate cancer-related mortality. Complications and side-effects were also compared. Results: Median age was 64.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 60-73.5) in the standard focal-HIFU group and 64.5 years (IQR 60-69) in the dose-escalation group. Median prostate volume was 37 mL (IQR 17-103) in the standard group and 47.5 mL (IQR 19-121) in the dose-escalation group. As tumor volume on mpMRI and Gleason score were major matching criteria, these were identical with 0.43 mL (IQR 0.05-2.5) and Gleason 3 + 3 = 6 in 1 out of 32 (3%), 3 + 4 = 7 in 27 out of 32 (84%), and 4 + 3 = 7 in 4 out of 32 (13%). Recurrence in treated areas was found in 10 out of 32 (31%) when standard treatment zones were applied, and in 6 out of 32 (19%) of dose-escalation focal HIFU (p = 0.007). Conclusion: This exploratory study shows that dose escalation focal HIFU may achieve higher rates of disease control compared with standard focal HIFU. Further prospective comparative studies are needed.

Evaluation of functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) procedure in men with primary localized, non-metastatic prostate cancer: results from the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry.

OBJECTIVES: To assess change in functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment compared with outcomes after one focal HIFU treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre study (2005-2016), 821 men underwent focal HIFU for localized non-metastatic prostate cancer. The patient-reported outcome measures of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage and erectile function (EF) score were prospectively collected for up to 3 years. To be included in the study, completion of at least one follow-up questionnaire was required. The primary outcome was comparison of change in functional outcomes between baseline and follow-up after one focal HIFU procedure vs after a second focal HIFU procedure, using IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 821 men, 654 underwent one focal HIFU procedure and 167 underwent a second focal HIFU procedure. A total of 355 (54.3%) men undergoing one focal HIFU procedure and 65 (38.9%) with a second focal HIFU procedure returned follow-up questionnaires, respectively. The mean age and prostate-specific antigen level were 66.4 and 65.6 years, and 7.9 and 8.4 ng/mL, respectively. After one focal HIFU treatment, the mean change in IPSS was -0.03 (P = 0.02) and in IIEF (EF score) it was -0.4 (P = 0.02) at 1-2 years, with no subsequent decline. Absolute rates of erectile dysfunction increased from 9.9% to 20.8% (P = 0.08), leak-free continence decreased from 77.9% to 72.8% (P = 0.06) and pad-free continence from 98.6% to 94.8% (P = 0.07) at 1-2 years, respectively. IPSS prior to second focal HIFU treatment compared to baseline IPSS prior to first focal HIFU treatment was lower by -1.3 (P = 0.02), but mean IPSS change was +1.4 at 1-2 years (P = 0.03) and +1.2 at 2-3 years (P = 0.003) after the second focal HIFU treatment. The mean change in EF score after the second focal HIFU treatment was -0.2 at 1-2 years (P = 0.60) and -0.5 at 2-3 years (P = 0.10), with 17.8% and 6.2% of men with new erectile dysfunction. The rate of new pad use was 1.8% at 1-2 years and 2.6% at 2-3 years. CONCLUSION: A second focal HIFU procedure causes minor detrimental effects on urinary function and EF. These data can be used to counsel patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer prior to considering HIFU therapy.

Prostate Specific Antigen Criteria to Diagnose Failure of Cancer Control following Focal Therapy of Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound.

PURPOSE: We determined whether prostate specific antigen criteria after focal high intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostate cancer could diagnose treatment failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 598 patients in a prospectively maintained national database underwent focal high intensity focused ultrasound with a Sonablate® 500 device from March 2007 to November 2016. Followup consisted of 3-month clinic visits and prostate specific antigen testing in year 1 with prostate specific antigen measurement every 6 to 12 months and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with biopsy for magnetic resonance imaging suspicious for recurrence. Treatment failure was considered any secondary treatment, tumor recurrence with Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastasis and/or prostate cancer related mortality. To diagnose failure we evaluated a series of nadir + x thresholds with x values of 0.1 to 2.0 ng/ml. RESULTS: Median patient age was 65 years (IQR 60-71) and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 6-9). Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease was present in 80% of cases. Tumors were radiologically staged as T1c-T2c in 522 of the 596 patients (88%) and as T3a/b in 74 (12.4%). Baseline median prostate specific antigen was 7.80 ng/ml (IQR 5.96-10.45) in failed cases and 6.77 ng/ml (IQR 2.65-9.71) in cases without failure. Optimal performance according to the Youden index to indicate the most appropriate nadir + x at all analyzed time points at 3-month intervals showed that nadir + 1.0 ng/ml would have 27.3% to 100% sensitivity and 39.4% to 85.6% specificity depending on the time of evaluation in the first 3 years. Nadir + 1.5 ng/ml showed 18.2% to 100% sensitivity and 60.6% to 91.8% specificity with nadir + 2.0 ng/ml leading to similar sensitivity and specificity ranges. Nadir + 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and nadir + 1.5 ng/ml at 24 and 36 months had 100% sensitivity and 96.1% to 100% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Following focal high intensity focused ultrasound a prostate specific antigen nadir of 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and 1.5 ng/ml at 24 to 36 months might be used to triage men requiring magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. These data need prospective validation.

A Multicentre Analysis of the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Following Transperineal Image-fusion Targeted and Nontargeted Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men at Risk.

BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to obtain tissue from men with suspected prostate cancer (PC). OBJECTIVE: To report a multicentre series of image-fusion transperineal prostate biopsies and compare the diagnostic yield of clinically significant PC (csPC) between targeted and nontargeted biopsies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 640 consecutive patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) presenting for first biopsy or following a previous negative transrectal biopsy under the care of 13 urologists in 11 centres in the UK (April 2014-June 2017). INTERVENTION: Multiparametric MRI was carried out in 61 approved prostate MRI centres with transperineal targeted alone (n=283) or targeted plus nontargeted (n=357) transperineal rigid image-fusion targeted biopsy (MIM-Symphony-DX). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Rates of csPC and insignificant cancer detection in targeted and nontargeted biopsies were measured using a number of thresholds to define clinical significance. The primary definition was Gleason≥4+3 or any grade ≥6mm. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The mean age, median PSA, and median prostate volume for the cohort were 63.8yr (standard deviation [SD] 8.4), 6.3 ng/ml (SD 5.8), and 42.0cm3 (SD 24.7), respectively. Overall, 276/640 men (43.1%) were diagnosed with csPC. csPC was detected from targeted biopsies alone in 263/640 cases (41.1%). Of the 357 men who underwent nontargeted biopsies, three (0.8%) had csPC exclusively in nontargeted cores, with no evidence of cancer in targeted cores. Overall, 32/357 (9.0%) had csPC in nontargeted biopsies regardless of the targeted biopsy findings. Clinically insignificant disease in nontargeted biopsies was detected in 93/357 men (26.1%). Our findings were consistent across all other thresholds of clinical significance. Limitations include the lack of nontargeted biopsies in all men. CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicentre series, nontargeted prostate biopsy cores had a low yield of csPC and a high yield of clinically insignificant PC. An image-fusion targeted-biopsy-only approach maintains high detection for csPC and low detection of clinically insignificant cancers. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we found that following prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted transperineal biopsies of suspicious areas, the clinical value of performing additional extensive unguided biopsies of nonsuspicious areas is limited and can often find insignificant cancers that do not need treatment.

A novel 'Batman' scrotectomy technique for the management of scrotal lymphoedema following treatment for penile cancer.

BACKGROUND: To describe a novel 'Batman' scrotectomy technique and present our single centre experience in the management of secondary scrotal lymphoedema in penile cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of the medical records of penile cancer patients with extensive and bothersome penoscrotal lymphoedema failing conservative therapy between 2013 and 2018. We analysed patients' demographics, pre-operative disease stage, post-operative outcomes and complications. RESULTS: Seven patients with a history of penile cancer and problematic scrotal lymphoedema were managed using a novel 'Batman' scrotectomy technique. The mean age was 56.4 (range, 28-71) years. The mean inpatient stay was 4.1 (range, 2-7) days. Two patients (28.6%) were found to have incidental metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in the scrotal skin on histological analysis. One patient developed superficial wound dehiscence (Clavien-Dindo grade II) and two patients had mild post-operative residual penile lymphoedema. Following a mean follow-up period of 19 months, 2 patients died due to metastatic penile cancer. One patient developed skin metastases in his thigh and perineum. All of the patients reported a good cosmetic and functional outcome on post-operative review. CONCLUSIONS: Genital lymphoedema is an uncommon side-effect of penile cancer treatment. In severe cases where patients fail conservative treatments, surgical intervention using this technique is effective and feasible.

Recent advances in the management of penile cancer.

Penile cancer is a rare condition and can be very complex to manage. Advances in surgical techniques, imaging, pathological classification and patient pathways have led to improved patient care. The diagnosis of pre-malignant change, penile cancer and metastatic disease along with advances in their treatment are detailed in this review which aims to update clinicians from multiple specialties and countries on penile cancer.