Variability of mpMRI diagnostic performance according to the upfront individual patient risk of having clinically significant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To assess the variation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) positive predictive value (PPV) according to each patient's risk of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) based exclusively on clinical factors. METHODS: We evaluated 999 patients with positive mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 3) receiving targeted (TBx) plus systematic prostate biopsy. We built a multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA) using clinical risk factors to calculate the individual patients' risk of harboring csPCa at TBx. A second MVA tested the association between individual patients' clinical risk and mpMRI PPV accounting for the PI-RADS score. Finally, we plotted the PPV of each PI-RADS score by the individual patient pretest probability of csPCa using a LOWESS approach. RESULTS: Overall, TBx found csPCa in 21%, 51%, and 80% of patients with PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions, respectively. At MVA, age, PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), and prostate volume were significantly associated with the risk of csPCa at biopsy. DRE yielded the highest odds ratio (OR: 2.88; p < 0.001). The individual patient's clinical risk was significantly associated with mpMRI PPV (OR: 2.49; p < 0.001) using MVA. Plotting the mpMRI PPV according to the predicted clinical risks, we observed that for patients with clinical risk close to 0 versus patients with risk higher than 90%, the mpMRI PPV of PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 ranged from 0% to 75%, from 0% to 96%, and from 45% to 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: mpMRI PPV varies according to the individual pretest patient's risk based on clinical factors. These findings should be considered in the decision-making process for patients with suspect MRI findings referred for a prostate biopsy. Moreover, our data support the need for further studies to create an individualized risk prediction tool.

Management and Oncologic Outcomes of Incidental Prostate Cancer After Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Denmark.

PURPOSE: Approximately 1 in 10 patients without prior prostate biopsy undergoing surgery for lower urinary tract symptoms harbors incidental prostate cancer; however, practice guidelines do not provide recommendations for its management. We aimed at describing the oncologic outcomes of patients with Grade Group (GG) 1 and GG2 prostate cancer diagnosed at transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a nationwide, population-based, observational study of patients undergoing TURP in Denmark from 2006 to 2022 using the Danish Prostate Registry. We estimated the cumulative incidence of further biopsies and MRI, curative treatment, endocrine treatment, and cause-specific mortality with competing risk analyses. RESULTS: Among 24,494 patients who underwent TURP, there were 1016 men with GG1 and 381 with GG2 prostate cancer. The 5-year cumulative incidence of further MRIs or biopsies was 36% (95% CI 33%-39%) for GG1 and 30% (95% CI 25%-34%) for GG2 disease. Fifteen-year prostate cancer mortality was 8.4% (95% CI 5.3%-11%) for GG1 and 14% (7.5%-21%) for GG2. A total of 270 men with GG1 disease underwent a biopsy after the TURP, and 162 (60%) had no cancer; in this group, prostate cancer mortality after 15 years was 0.6% (95% CI 0%-1.8%). Men with post-TURP biopsy ≥ GG2 had a prostate cancer mortality of 30% (95% CI 9%-50%) 15 years post TURP. The major limitation was the heterogeneous follow-up, which could lead to an overestimation of prostate cancer mortality compared to a more standardized follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We observed high prostate cancer mortality after TURP with GG1 or GG2, likely due to unsampled high-grade cancer in the peripheral zone. Patients with incidental prostate cancer should be further investigated to rule out high-grade cancer. For patients with GG1 on TURP, once a subsequent biopsy does not show cancer, follow-up should be lessened similar to that of patients with an initial nonmalignant biopsy.

Defining the optimal target-to-background ratio to identify positive lymph nodes in prostate cancer patients undergoing robot-assisted [99mTc]Tc-PSMA radioguided surgery: updated results and ad interim analyses of a prospective phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific membrane antigen radioguided surgery (PSMA-RGS) might identify lymph node invasion (LNI) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND). The optimal target-to-background (TtB) ratio to define RGS positivity is still unknown. MATERIALS & METHODS: Ad interim analyses which focused on 30 patients with available pathological information were conducted. All patients underwent preoperative PSMA positron emission tomography (PET). 99m-Technetium-PSMA imaging and surgery ([99mTc]Tc-PSMA-I&S) was administered the day before surgery. In vivo measurements were conducted using an intraoperative gamma probe. Performance characteristics and implications associated with different TtB ratios were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 9 (30%) patients had LNI, with 22 (13%) and 80 (11%) positive regions and lymph nodes, respectively. PSMA-RGS showed uptakes in 12 (40%) vs. 7 (23%) vs. 6 (20%) patients for a TtB ratio ≥ 2 vs. ≥ 3 vs. ≥ 4. At a per-region level, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for a TtB ratio ≥ 2 vs. ≥ 3 vs. ≥ 4 were 72%, 88% and 87% vs. 54%, 98% and 92% vs. 36%, 99% and 91%. Performing ePLND only in patients with suspicious spots at PSMA PET (n = 7) would have spared 77% ePLNDs at the cost of missing 13% (n = 3) pN1 patients. A TtB ratio ≥ 2 at RGS identified 8 (24%) suspicious areas not detected by PSMA PET, of these 5 (63%) harbored LNI, with one pN1 patient (11%) that would have been missed by PSMA PET. Adoption of a TtB ratio ≥ 2 vs. ≥ 3 vs. ≥ 4, would have allowed to spare 18 (60%) vs. 23 (77%) vs. 24 (80%) ePLNDs missing 2 (11%) vs. 3 (13%) vs. 4 (17%) pN1 patients. CONCLUSIONS: PSMA-RGS using a TtB ratio ≥ 2 to identify suspicious nodes, could allow to spare > 50% ePLNDs and would identify additional pN1 patients compared to PSMA PET and higher TtB ratios.

Peri- and post-operative outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy after the implementation of the EAU guidelines recommendations for collecting and reporting complications at a high-volume referral center.

PURPOSE: No studies relied on a standardized methodology to collect postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). The aim of our study was to evaluate peri- and post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing RARC adhering to the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations for reporting surgical outcomes and using a long postoperative follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 246 patients who underwent RARC with intracorporal urinary diversion at a single tertiary referral center with a postoperative follow-up ≥ 1 year for survivors. Postoperative outcomes were collected prospectively by interviews done by medical doctors. Complications were scored using the Clavien-Dindo classification (CD), grouped by type and severity (severe: CD score ≥ 3). We described peri- and post-operative outcomes and complication chronological distribution. RESULTS: Overall, 16 (6.5%) and 225 patients (91%) experienced intraoperative and postoperative complications, respectively. Moreover, 139 (57%) experienced severe complications. The most common any-grade and severe complications were infectious (72%) and genitourinary (35%), respectively. Overall, 52% of complications (358/682) occurred within 10 days from surgery, and 51% of severe complications (106/207) occurred within 35 days. However, 13% of complications (90/682) and 28% of severe complications (59/207) occurred 3 months after surgery. The earliest complications were fever of unknown origins and paralytic ileus (median time-to-complication [mTTC]: 4 days), the latest complications were urinary tract infection (mTTC: 40 days) and hydronephrosis/ureteral obstruction (mTTC: 70 days). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of postoperative complications after RARC is > 90% when a standardized collection method and a long follow-up is implemented. These results should be used to identify potential areas of improvement and for preoperative patient counseling.

Is MRI ready to replace biopsy during active surveillance?

Active surveillance (AS) is a conservative management option recommended for patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and selected cases with intermediate-risk PCa. The adoption of prostate MRI in the primary diagnostic setting has sparked interest in its application during AS. This review aims to examine the role and performance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) across the entire AS pathway, from initial stratification to follow-up, also relative to the utilization of the Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) criteria. Given the high negative predictive value of mpMRI in detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa), robust evidence supports its use in patient selection and risk stratification at the time of diagnosis or confirmatory biopsy. However, conflicting results have been observed when using MRI in evaluating disease progression during follow-up. Key areas requiring clarification include addressing the clinical significance of MRI-negative csPCa, optimizing MRI quality, determining the role of biparametric MRI (bpMRI) or mpMRI protocols, and integrating artificial intelligence (AI) for improved performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: MRI plays an essential role in the selection, stratification, and follow up of patients in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. However, owing to existing limitations, it cannot fully replace biopsies in the context of AS. KEY POINTS: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has become a crucial tool in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa). Conflicting results have been observed regarding multiparametric MRI efficacy in assessing disease progression. Standardizing MRI-guided protocols will be critical in addressing current limitations in active surveillance for prostate cancer.

The Impact of Second Opinion Expert Pathology Review in Patient Management at the Time of Transurethral Resection of the Bladder.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pathological features in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer specimens are pivotal in determining correct patients' therapeutic management. Sparse data exist regarding the importance of second opinion performed by an expert uropathologist. This study aimed to assess the importance of a second opinion by an expert uropathologist in the management of bladder cancer. METHODS: The study relied on 272 bladder cancer specimens from 231 patients seeking a pathology second opinion after transurethral resection of the bladder for a clinical suspicion of bladder cancer, relapse, or second-look procedure. Pathology second opinion was offered by an experienced fellowship-trained uropathologist. Discrepancies were recorded considering primary tumor staging, the presence of muscularis propria, and the presence of histological variants. Cases were categorized as no significant discordance, major discordance without management change, and major discordance with management change according to the European Urology Association (EAU) guidelines. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 272 second opinion cases, 39% (108/272) had major discordance and 28% (75/272) had major discordance with change in management according to the EAU guidelines. Upstaging and downstaging were reported in 66 (24%) patients. Improper identification of the presence of muscularis propria was found in 46 (17%) cases, of which 11 (4%) were deemed clinically relevant. Differences regarding the presence of histological variants were diagnosed in 40 cases (15%), resulting in eight (3%) changes in clinical management. In ten specimens (4%), multiple clinically relevant discrepancies were found. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The second opinion evaluation changed the clinical management in 25% of the cases. These results support the importance of specimen review by an expert uropathologist as a major driver in the correct bladder cancer management. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the importance of a second opinion performed by an expert uropathologist in the management of bladder cancer. We found that 25% had their treatment plan changed due to the revised pathological report.