Infectious complications after transrectal MRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE: To compare infectious complications after transrectal systematic prostate biopsy (SB) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TB) in a large retrospective cohort to assess whether one technique is superior to the other regarding infectious complications. METHODS: A total of 4497 patients underwent 5288 biopsies, 2875 (54%) SB and 2413 (46%) MRI-TB only. On average, 12 SB cores and 3.7 MRI-TB cores were taken per biopsy session during the study period. Infection-related complications within 30 days were compared. The primary endpoint was a positive urine culture. Secondary endpoints were positive blood cultures, urine tests with elevated leukocytes ≥ 100 E6/L and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 100 mg/L. Chi-square test was used to compare the cohorts. RESULTS: Positive urine cultures were found in 77 (2.7%) after SB and in 42 (1.7%) after MRI-TB (p = 0.022). In total, 46 (0.9%) blood culture positive infections were found, 23 (0.9%) occurred after SB and 23 (1.0%) after MRI-TB, (p = 0.848). Urine tests with elevated leukocytes ≥ 100 E6/L were found in 111 (3.9%) after SB and in 61 (2.5%) after MRI-TB (p = 0.006). Elevated CRP ≥ 100 mg/L was found in 122 (4.2%) after SB and in 72 (3.0%) after MRI-TB (p = 0.015). Blood cultures were drawn more often after SB than after MRI-TB, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, urine cultures and CRP were taken more often after SB than MRI-TB. CONCLUSION: Blood culture positive infections were equally rare after SB and MRI-TB. However, all other infectious complications were more common after SB than MRI-TB.

Does Protocol Make a Difference? Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts: A Non-protocol-based Follow-up and a Protocol-based Contemporary Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred option for initial management for low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Although many AS protocols exist, there is little evidence to support one over another. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether there is difference in overall (OS), prostate cancer-specific (CSS), metastasis-free (MFS), or treatment-free (TFS) survival between a strict (Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance [PRIAS]) and a loose (European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC]) AS protocol. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study included two cohorts of men (n = 518) with low-risk, localized, Gleason score ≤7 PC. The ERSPC cohort included 241 men followed for 9.5 yr (median) with a non-protocol-based follow-up. The PRIAS cohort included 277 men followed for 5 yr (median) with a strict protocol. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS, CSS, MFS, and TFS were compared by the Kaplan-Meier method, competing risk analysis, and Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: As expected, due to the difference in median follow-up time between the cohorts, a difference in the absolute number of events was seen. However, no difference in any of the survival outcomes was evident in the Kaplan-Meier or competing risks analysis. Furthermore, in Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, cohort (ERSPC vs PRIAS) was not associated with any of the outcomes. Results are limited by the retrospective study design, limited statistical power, and inability to match the cohorts for predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in survival outcomes between a non-protocol-based follow-up and a protocol-based contemporary AS follow-up of patients with low-risk PC. However, a longer follow-up is needed. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared survival outcomes of two cohorts of patients with low-risk prostate cancer: a strict and a loose follow-up protocol. We found no differences in survival measures between the cohorts.

Transcript analysis of commercial prostate cancer risk stratification panels in hard-to-predict grade group 2-4 prostate cancers.

BACKGROUND: Improved prognostication is needed to minimize overtreatment in grade group (GG) 2-4 prostate cancer. Our aim was to determine, at messenger RNA (mRNA) level, the performance of the genes in the commercial panels Decipher, Oncotype DX, Prolaris, and mutational panel MSK-IMPACT to predict metastasis-free and prostate cancer-specific death (PCSD) in patients with GG 2-4 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. METHODS: The retrospective cohort consisted of GG 2-4 patients treated with radical prostatectomy (median follow-up 10.4 years). Seventy-six cases with postoperative metastasis or PCSD and 84 controls with similar clinical baseline risk, but without progression, were analyzed. Index lesion mRNA transcripts were analyzed using NanoString technology. Random forest models were trained using panel gene sets to predict clinical endpoints and area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, and number needed to diagnose (NND) was measured. Survival probability was assessed with Kaplan-Meier estimator. RESULTS: All gene sets outperformed clinical parameters and predicted metastasis-free and prostate cancer-specific survival. However, there were significant differences between the panels. In metastasis prediction, the genes in Oncotype DX had inferior performance (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.65) compared to other panels (AUC = 0.73-0.74). Decipher, MSK-IMPACT and Prolaris showed similar NND (2.83-3.12) with Oncotype DX having highest NND (4.79). In PCSD prediction, the Prolaris gene set performed worse (AUC = 0.66) than MSK-IMPACT or Decipher (AUC = 0.72). Oncotype DX performed similarly to other panels (AUC = 0.69, p > .05). Oncotype DX demonstrated lowest NND (2.79) compared to other panels (4.22-5.66). CONCLUSION: Transcript analysis of genes included in commercial panels is feasible in survival prediction of GG 2-4 patients after radical prostatectomy and may aid in clinical decision making. There were significant differences between the panels, and overall stronger predictive gene sets are needed. Prospective investigation is warranted in biopsy materials.

Grading Evolution and Contemporary Prognostic Biomarkers of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

Gleason grading remains the strongest prognostic parameter in localized prostate adenocarcinoma. We have here outlined the evolution and contemporary practices in pathological evaluation of prostate tissue samples for Gleason score and Grade group. The state of more observer-independent grading methods with the aid of artificial intelligence is also reviewed. Additionally, we conducted a systematic review of biomarkers that hold promise in adding independent prognostic or predictive value on top of clinical parameters, Grade group and PSA. We especially focused on hard end points during the follow-up, i.e., occurrence of metastasis, disease-specific mortality and overall mortality. In peripheral blood, biopsy-detected prostate cancer or in surgical specimens, we can conclude that there are more than sixty biomarkers that have been shown to have independent prognostic significance when adjusted to conventional risk assessment or grouping. Our search brought up some known putative markers and panels, as expected. Also, the synthesis in the systematic review indicated markers that ought to be further studied as part of prospective trials and in well characterized patient cohorts in order to increase the resolution of the current clinico-pathological prognostic factors.

PTEN and ERG expression in MRI-ultrasound guided fusion biopsy correlated with radical prostatectomy findings in men with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Conventional systematic prostate biopsies (SBx) have multiple limitations, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion targeting is increasingly applied (fusion biopsies [FBx]). In our previous studies, we have shown that loss of the tumor suppressor gene phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens predicts poor disease-specific survival, and in active surveillance (AS), PTEN loss in SBx predicts an adverse AS outcome, although SBx PTEN status does not correlate well with the corresponding RP status. Here, we have hypothesized that PTEN and erythroblast transformation-specific related gene (ERG) status in FBx correlate better with RP than they would in SBx. METHODS: A total of 106 men, who had undergone FBx and subsequent RP in a single center between June 2015 and May 2017 were included. Fifty-three of the men had concomitant or previous SBx's. All biopsy and RP specimens were collected, and tissue microarrays (TMA) were constructed from RP specimens. Immunohistochemical stainings for PTEN and ERG expression were conducted on biopsies and RP TMAs and results were compared by using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The immunohistochemical predictive power of FBx, determined by the concordance of biopsy PTEN and ERG status with RP, is superior to SBx (77.6% vs 66.7% in PTEN, 92.4% vs 66.6% in ERG). FBx was superior to SBx in correlation with RP Gleason Grade Groups and MRI prostate imaging reporting and data system scores. CONCLUSION: FBx grading correlates with RP histology and MRI findings and predicts the biomarker status in the RP specimens more accurately than SBx. A longer follow-up is needed to evaluate if this translates to better prediction of disease outcomes, especially in AS and radiation therapy where prostatectomy specimens are not available for prognostication.

Cumulative Cancer Locations is a Novel Metric for Predicting Active Surveillance Outcomes: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) of prostate cancer (PC) has increased in popularity to address overtreatment. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a novel metric, cumulative cancer locations (CCLO), can predict AS outcomes in a group of AS patients with low and very low risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CCLO is obtained by summing the total number of histological cancer-positive locations in both diagnostic and confirmatory biopsies (Bx). The retrospective study cohort comprised three prospective AS cohorts (Helsinki University Hospital: n=316; European Institute of Oncology: n=204; and University of Münster: n=89). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We analyzed whether risk stratification based on CCLO predicts different AS outcomes: protocol-based discontinuation (PBD), Gleason upgrading (GU) during AS, and adverse findings in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. RESULTS: In Kaplan Meier analyses, patients in the CCLO high-risk group experienced significantly shorter event-free survival for all outcomes (PBD, GU, and adverse RP findings; all p<0.002). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, patients in the CCLO high-risk group had a significantly higher risk of experiencing PBD (hazard ratio [HR] 12.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.18-23.9; p<0.001), GU (HR 6.01, 95% CI 2.16-16.8; p=0.002), and adverse RP findings (HR 9.144, 95% CI 2.27-36.9; p=0.006). In receiver operating characteristic analyses, the area under the curve for CCLO outperformed the number of cancer-positive Bxs in confirmatory Bx in predicting PBD (0.734 vs 0.682), GU (0.655 vs 0.576) and adverse RP findings (0.662 vs 0.561) and the added value was supported by decision curve analysis. CONCLUSIONS: CCLO is distinct from the number of positive Bx cores. Higher CCLO predicts AS outcomes and may aid in selection of patients for AS. PATIENT SUMMARY: For patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer, the cumulative number of cancer-positive locations in diagnostic and confirmatory biopsies is a predictor of active surveillance outcomes.

PTEN Loss but Not ERG Expression in Diagnostic Biopsies Is Associated with Increased Risk of Progression and Adverse Surgical Findings in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is an option for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). PTEN and ERG have been considered as potential biomarkers of PCa progression and survival. OBJECTIVE: To study the role of ERG and PTEN status in the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) trial diagnostic biopsies (DBxs) in predicting surveillance discontinuation and adverse surgical findings in subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 231 patients were recruited to the PRIAS between 2007 and 2013 in Helsinki. DBx tissue for immunohistochemistry (IHC) was available from 190 patients. Tissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed from 57 specimens of subsequent RPs. DBxs containing grade group (GG) 1 PCa and RP TMA sections were stained with ERG and PTEN antibodies, and scored as either negative or positive. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Outcomes were followed up by biopsy GG upgrade (GG ≥ 2) and protocol-based treatment change, as well as adverse findings in RP (GG ≥ 3 or pathological stage≥3). Clinical variables and biomarker status in DBx were correlated in Cox regression analysis and cumulative survival in Kaplan-Meier analysis, and finally, Gray's competing risk analysis was performed and nonprotocol-based discontinuation was considered as a competing event. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In both uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses, only the number of positive cores in the DBx, the number of rebiopsy sessions, and PTEN status at diagnosis were significantly associated with rebiopsy GG upgrade, treatment change, and adverse histopathology in RP. In Kaplan-Meier analysis, PTEN loss was associated with a shorter time to GG upgrade and treatment change. Patients with PTEN loss had a higher probability for protocol-based discontinuation but not for competing risk factors compared with patients with intact PTEN. Biopsy ERG status was concordant with RP TMA ERG status, while PTEN was not. Limitations include a retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data. CONCLUSIONS: PTEN status at diagnosis is a potential biomarker for identifying patients with PCa on AS with a high risk for progression or adverse findings on subsequent RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: A simple diagnostic biopsy-based analysis of PTEN status may help identify patients with high risk for prostate cancer progression.