Differences in mutations across tumour sizes in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the distribution of key mutations across tumour sizes in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), and secondarily to examine the prognostic impact of aggressive mutations in smaller ccRCCs. PATIENT AND METHODS: The distribution of mutations (VHL, PBRM1, SETD2, BAP1 and CDKN2A loss) across tumour sizes was assessed in 1039 ccRCCs treated with nephrectomy in cohorts obtained from the Tracking Cancer Evolution (TRACERx), The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the Cancer Genomics of the Kidney (CAGEKID) projects. Logistic regression was used to model the presence of each mutation against size. In our secondary analysis, we assessed a subset of ccRCCs ≤7 cm for associations of key aggressive mutations (SETD2, BAP1, and CDKN2A loss) with metastasis, invasive disease and overall survival, while controlling for size. A subset of localised tumours ≤7 cm was also used to assess associations with recurrence after nephrectomy. RESULTS: On logistic regression, each 1-cm increase in tumour size was associated with aggressive mutations, SETD2, BAP1, and CDKN2A loss, at odds ratios (ORs) of 1.09, 1.10 and 1.19 (P < 0.001), whereas no significant association was observed between tumour size and PBRM1 (OR 1.02; P = 0.23). VHL was mildly negatively associated with a 1-cm increase in size (OR 0.95; P = 0.01). Among tumours ≤7 cm, SETD2 and CDKN2A loss were associated with metastatic disease at ORs of 3.86 and 3.84 (P < 0.05) while controlling for tumour size. CDKN2A loss was associated with worse overall survival, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.19 (P = 0.03). Among localised tumours ≤7 cm, SETD2 was associated with worse recurrence-free survival (HR 2.00; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Large and small ccRCCs are genomically different. Aggressive mutations, namely, SETD2, BAP1, and CDKN2A loss, are rarely observed in small ccRCCs and are observed more frequently in larger tumours. However, when present in tumours ≤7 cm, SETD2 mutations and CDKN2A loss were still independently associated with invasive disease, metastasis, worse survival, and recurrence after resection, after controlling for size.

Comparing Patient-reported Functional Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy in Historical and Contemporary Practice.

PURPOSE: Modifications to surgical technique, particularly the widespread adoption of robotic surgery, have been proposed to improve functional recovery after prostate cancer surgery. However, rigorous comparison of men in historical vs contemporary practice to evaluate the cumulative effect of these changes on urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared prospectively collected patient-reported urinary and sexual function from historical (PROSTQA [Prostate Cancer Outcomes and Satisfaction With Treatment Quality Assessment study], n=235) and contemporary (MUSIC-PRO [Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative Patient Reported Outcome] registry, n=1,215) cohorts at the University of Michigan to understand whether modern techniques have resulted in functional improvements for men undergoing prostate cancer surgery. RESULTS: We found significant differences in baseline function, with better urinary (median [IQR]; 100 [93.8-100] vs 93.8 [85.5-100], P < .001) and sexual scores (median [IQR]; 83.3 [66.7-100] vs 74.4 [44.2-87.5], P < .001) prior to treatment in PROSTQA compared to MUSIC-PRO patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the pattern of urinary incontinence recovery after surgery from 6-24 months between groups (P = .14). However, men in the contemporary MUSIC-PRO group did have significantly better recovery of sexual function compared to men in the historical PROSTQA group (P < .0001). Further, we found that contemporary practice consists of men with more unfavorable demographic and clinical characteristics compared to historical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the widespread alterations in prostate cancer surgery over the past 2 decades have yielded improvements in sexual, but not urinary, function recovery.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part II of a two-part series focusing on initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. Please refer to Part I for discussion of initial prostate cancer screening recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsies, and biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of prostate cancer risk should be focused on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Grade Group 2 or higher [GG2+]). The use of laboratory biomarkers, prostate MRI, and biopsy techniques described herein may improve detection and safety when a prostate biopsy is deemed necessary following prostate cancer screening.

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part I: Prostate Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on the early detection of prostate cancer and provides a framework to facilitate clinical decision-making in the implementation of prostate cancer screening, biopsy, and follow-up. This is Part I of a two-part series that focuses on prostate cancer screening. Please refer to Part II for discussion of initial and repeat biopsies as well as biopsy technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review utilized to inform this guideline was conducted by an independent methodological consultant. The systematic review was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 1, 2000-November 21, 2022). Searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: The Early Detection of Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance in prostate cancer screening, initial and repeat biopsy, and biopsy technique. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening in combination with shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. Current data regarding risk from population-based cohorts provide a basis for longer screening intervals and tailored screening, and the use of available online risk calculators is encouraged.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for individuals with a prostate who opt to participate in an early detection program after receiving the appropriate counseling on the pros and cons. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines with regard to the testing protocol, use of multiparametric MRI, and management of negative biopsy results to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and minimize the detection of indolent disease.

Testing-Related Health Impact of Transrectal and Transperineal Prostate Biopsy as Assessed by Health Utilities.

PURPOSE: We sought to assess the temporary health-related quality of life (health utility) of nonmagnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a 2-arm, prospectively enrolled, observational, patient-reported outcomes study, performed between June 2019 and November 2020 at a single academic medical center. Inclusion criteria were men undergoing an outpatient ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (transrectal or transperineal approach, without magnetic resonance imaging guidance). Patients with a history of Gleason 7+ prostate cancer were excluded. Validated survey instruments were utilized to assess baseline (Short Form 12) and testing-related (Testing Morbidities Index [TMI]) health utility states. The primary outcome was the TMI summary testing-related quality-of-life score (summary utility score; scale: 0=death and 1=perfect health). The TMI is comprised of 7 domains, spanning before, during and after testing experiences. Each domain is scored from 1 (no health impact) to 5 (extreme health impact). Testing-related quality-of-life measures were compared with Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Enrollment rates were 80% (60/75; transrectal) and 86% (60/70; transperineal). All patients (120/120) completed the questionnaire. The TMI summary score for transrectal biopsy was not significantly different from transperineal biopsy (0.86, 95% CI 0.84-0.88 vs 0.83, 95% CI 0.81-0.85; p=0.0774). The largest difference in the testing experiences was related to intraprocedural pain (transrectal biopsy: 2.3, 95% CI 2.1-2.4; transperineal biopsy: 2.9, 95% CI 2.6-3.1; p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsies have similar effect on temporary health-related quality-of-life. Transient differences relate to intraprocedural pain. These data can inform clinical decision making and future cost-utility models.

Use of the MyProstateScore Test to Rule Out Clinically Significant Cancer: Validation of a Straightforward Clinical Testing Approach.

PURPOSE: The MyProstateScore test was validated for improved detection of clinically significant (grade group ≥2) prostate cancer relative to prostate specific antigen based risk calculators. We sought to validate an optimal MyProstateScore threshold for clinical use in ruling out grade group ≥2 cancer in men referred for biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biopsy naïve men provided post-digital rectal examination urine prior to biopsy. MyProstateScore was calculated using the validated, locked multivariable model including only serum prostate specific antigen, urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 and urinary TMPRSS2:ERG. The MyProstateScore threshold approximating 95% sensitivity for grade group ≥2 cancer was identified in a training cohort, and performance was measured in 2 external validation cohorts. We assessed the 1) overall biopsy referral population and 2) population meeting guideline based testing criteria (ie, prostate specific antigen 3-10, or <3 with suspicious digital rectal examination). RESULTS: Validation cohorts were prospectively enrolled from academic (977 patients, median prostate specific antigen 4.5, IQR 3.1-6.0) and community (548, median prostate specific antigen 4.9, IQR 3.7-6.8) settings. In the overall validation population (1,525 patients), 338 men (22%) had grade group ≥2 cancer on biopsy. The MyProstateScore threshold of 10 provided 97% sensitivity and 98% negative predictive value for grade group ≥2 cancer. MyProstateScore testing would have prevented 387 unnecessary biopsies (33%), while missing only 10 grade group ≥2 cancers (3.0%). In 1,242 patients meeting guideline based criteria, MyProstateScore ≤10 provided 96% sensitivity and 97% negative predictive value, and would have prevented 32% of unnecessary biopsies, missing 3.7% of grade group ≥2 cancers. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, clinically pertinent biopsy referral population, MyProstateScore ≤10 provided exceptional sensitivity and negative predictive value for ruling out grade group ≥2 cancer. This straightforward secondary testing approach would reduce the use of more costly and invasive procedures after screening with prostate specific antigen.

Tumor cell heterogeneity and resistance; report from the 2018 Coffey-Holden Prostate Cancer Academy Meeting.

INTRODUCTION: The 2018 Coffey-Holden Prostate Cancer Academy (CHPCA) Meeting, "Tumor Cell Heterogeneity and Resistance," was held in Los Angeles, California from June 21 to 24, 2018. METHODS: The CHPCA Meeting is a unique, discussion-oriented scientific conference convened annually by the Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCF), which focuses on the most critical topics in need of further study to advance the treatment of lethal prostate cancer. The 6th Annual CHPCA Meeting was attended by 70 investigators and concentrated on prostate cancer heterogeneity and treatment resistance. RESULTS: The meeting focused on topics including: recognition of tumor heterogeneity, molecular drivers of heterogeneity, the role of the tumor microenvironment, the role of heterogeneity in disease progression, metastasis and treatment resistance, clinical trials designed to target resistance and tumor heterogeneity, and immunotherapeutic approaches to target and overcome tumor heterogeneity. DISCUSSION: This review article summarizes the presentations and discussions from the 2018 CHPCA Meeting in order to share this knowledge with the scientific community and encourage new studies that will lead to improved treatments and outcomes for men with prostate cancer.

Bringing Prostate Cancer Germline Genetics into Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Until recently the role of germline genetics in prostate cancer care was not well defined. While important questions remain, we reviewed the current understanding of germline genetic alterations related to prostate cancer. We discuss the clinical implications for genetic counseling, genetic testing, early detection and treatment in men with these mutations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed® for English language articles published since 2001 with the key words "germline mutations," "BRCA," "family history" or "prostate cancer genetics." We also used relevant data from websites, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Comprehensive Cancer Network®, Bureau of Labor Statistics and National Society of Genetic Counselors websites. RESULTS: A number of germline mutations in DNA damage repair genes ( BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM and PALB2) and in DNA mismatch repair genes ( MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2) can drive the development of prostate cancer. Careful genetic counseling coupled with multipanel gene testing can help identify men with these mutations and provide enhanced understanding of the disease risk. Cascade testing of family members can then have an impact extending well beyond the index patient. In men with a pathogenic germline mutation the optimal early detection paradigm is not well defined. Data from the IMPACT study ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00261456) that the cancer detection rate is substantially elevated in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers at prostate specific antigen greater than 3 ng/ml has helped establish the importance of close prostate specific antigen screening in these men. Additionally, BRCA2 and likely other DNA damage repair mutations are associated with aggressive disease, although it is not yet clear how this impacts localized disease management. However, there is strong evidence that patients with metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer who have DNA damage repair defects respond positively to targeting PARP enzymes. In many cancers there is also evidence that patients with an increased tumor mutational burden, such as in Lynch syndrome, are particularly sensitive to immune checkpoint inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Emerging evidence supports the implementation of germline genetic counseling and testing as a key component of prostate cancer management. Further research is needed to elucidate the clinical significance of lesser known germline mutations and develop optimal screening, early detection and treatment paradigms in this patient population.

International Multicenter Validation of an Intermediate Risk Subclassification of Prostate Cancer Managed with Radical Treatment without Hormone Therapy.

PURPOSE: The NCCN Guidelines® recently endorsed a subclassification of intermediate risk prostate cancer into favorable and unfavorable subgroups. However, this subclassification was developed in a treatment heterogeneous cohort. Thus, to our knowledge the natural history of androgen deprivation treatment naïve favorable and unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer cases remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Groups at 3 academic centers pooled data on patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with radical monotherapy (dose escalated external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy or radical prostatectomy) without combined androgen deprivation treatment. We used the cumulative incidence with competing risk analysis to estimate biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis and prostate cancer specific mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2,550 men at intermediate risk were included in study, of whom 1,063 and 1,487 were at favorable and unfavorable risk, respectively. Of the men 1,149 underwent radical prostatectomy, 1,143 underwent dose escalated external beam radiotherapy and 258 underwent brachytherapy. Median followup after the different treatments ranged from 60.4 to 107.4 months. The 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastasis in the favorable vs unfavorable risk groups was 0.2% (95% CI 0.2-0.2) vs 11.6% (95% CI 7.7-15.5) for radical prostatectomy (p <0.001), 2.8% (95% CI 0.8-4.8) vs 13.5% (95% CI 9.6-17.4) for dose escalated external beam radiotherapy (p <0.001) and 3.5% (95% CI 0-7.4) vs 10.2% (95% CI 4.3-16.1) for brachytherapy (p = 0.063). The 10-year rate of prostate cancer specific mortality in the favorable vs unfavorable risk groups was 0% (95% CI 0-0) vs 3.7% (95% CI 1.7-5.7) for radical prostatectomy (p = 0.016), 0.5% (95% CI 0.5-0.5) vs 5.6% (95% CI 3.6-7.6) for dose escalated external beam radiotherapy (p = 0.015) and 0% (95% CI 0-0) vs 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.5) for brachytherapy (p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter international effort independently validates the prognostic value of the intermediate risk prostate cancer subclassification in androgen deprivation treatment naïve cases across all radical treatment modalities. It is unlikely that treatment intensification would meaningfully improve oncologic outcomes in men at favorable intermediate risk.

The genomics of renal cell carcinoma and its role in renal mass biopsy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Large-scale genomic profiling has shed new light on the molecular underpinnings of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), spurring a much needed refinement of RCC subclassification based on an integrative assessment of histopathologic features and molecular alterations. At the same time, renal mass biopsies have become increasingly commonplace, necessitating ancillary tools to help guide clinical management. Herein, we briefly review our current understanding of RCC genomics, highlighting areas of possible clinical utility, as well as potential limitations, for renal mass biopsies. RECENT FINDINGS: Distinct RCC subtypes harbor characteristic molecular features, including somatic mutations, copy number alterations, and genomic rearrangements. Existing ancillary tools, including fluorescent in-situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry, may be useful for diagnostic subclassification. Recurrent secondary molecular alterations in clear cell RCC (BAP1, SETD2, PBRM1, and TP53) and papillary RCC (CDKN2A) may be associated with poor prognosis; however, intratumoral genomic heterogeneity may limit the clinical utility of these molecular biomarkers in renal mass biopsies. SUMMARY: Recent technological advances have the potential to fundamentally alter the clinical management of RCC by leveraging our increasing understanding of RCC genomics to assess hundreds of molecular biomarkers simultaneously. Additional focused molecular analyses of renal mass biopsy cohorts are needed prior to widespread implementation of molecular biomarker assays.

Risk stratification of prostate cancer utilizing apparent diffusion coefficient value and lesion volume on multiparametric MRI.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and lesion volume in potentially risk-stratifying patients with prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with elevated prostate-specific antigen or abnormal digital rectal exam underwent a 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with endorectal coil. ADC maps were calculated using b values of 0, 500, 1000, and 1500; additional images were obtained with b value of 2000. We prospectively enrolled 312 men with lesions suspicious for cancer (suspicion score 2-5) on mpMRI. MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsies were performed. Mean ADC of suspicious lesions were correlated against lesion volume, Gleason and D'Amico risk. RESULTS: The cancer detection rate of fusion biopsy per lesion was 45.6% (206/452). Cancerous lesions were larger (median volume: 0.40 vs. 0.30 cm3 ; P = 0.016). The median ADC (×10-6 mm2 /sec) for lesions negative and positive for PCa were 984.5 and 666.5, respectively (P < 0.0001). The AUC of ADC in predicting PCa was 0.79. Larger lesions were associated with higher risk PCa (Gleason and D'Amico) and lower ADC (all P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The mean ADC of suspicious lesions on mpMRI was inversely correlated, while lesion volume had a direct correlation with PCa detection. Future follow-up studies are needed to assess longitudinal cancer risks of suspicious mpMRI lesions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:610-616.

Active surveillance for incidental renal mass in the octogenarian.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the oncologic outcomes among a large cohort of octogenarian patients placed on active surveillance for a localized renal mass. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients ≥80 years of age presenting for asymptomatic, incidentally detected clinically localized stage T1 renal mass between 2006 and 2013 who were followed by active surveillance (AS). The primary endpoint was development of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Secondary outcomes included intervention-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Eighty-nine octogenarians (median age = 83.4 years) were placed on AS for a median 29.9 months. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index and Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living scores were 2 and 5, respectively. For all comers, median initial tumor size was 2.4 cm with median growth rate of 0.20 cm/year. Eight (9.0%) patients failed AS due to delayed intervention and three (1.1%) due to systemic progression after median follow-up of 27.8 and 39.9 months, respectively. Two (2.2%) patients in the delayed intervention cohort developed metastasis after treatment. Tumor growth rate was significantly higher among those undergoing intervention versus no intervention (0.60 vs. 0.15 cm/year, P = 0.05) and among patients with systemic progression versus no metastasis (1.28 vs. 0.18 cm/year, P = 0.001). Five-year intervention-free, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survivals were 90.6, 95.6, 95.6, and 85.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: AS represents an effective management strategy in octogenarians given low overall risk of metastasis. Tumor growth kinetics may identify patients at risk of systemic progression in whom treatment should be considered.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy in Patients Continuing Aspirin Therapy.

PURPOSE: A clinical dilemma surrounds the use of aspirin therapy during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Despite reduced cardiac morbidity with perioperative aspirin use, fear of bleeding related complications often prompts discontinuation of therapy before surgery. We evaluate perioperative outcomes among patients continuing aspirin and those in whom treatment is stopped preoperatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 430 consecutive cases of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy performed between January 2012 and October 2014 were reviewed. Patients on chronic aspirin therapy were stratified into on aspirin and off aspirin groups based on perioperative status of aspirin use. Primary end points evaluated included estimated intraoperative blood loss and incidence of bleeding related complications, major postoperative complications, and thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes included operative time, transfusion rate, length of hospital stay, rehospitalization rate and surgical margin status. RESULTS: Among 101 (23.4%) patients on chronic aspirin therapy, antiplatelet treatment was continued in 17 (16.8%). Bleeding developed in 1 patient in the on aspirin group postoperatively and required angioembolization. Conversely 1 myocardial infarction was observed in the off aspirin cohort. There was no significant difference in the incidence of major postoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion rate, length of hospital stay and rehospitalization rate. Operative time was increased with continued aspirin use (181 vs 136 minutes, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy is safe and effective in patients on chronic antiplatelet therapy who require perioperative aspirin for cardioprotection. Larger, prospective studies are necessary to discern the true cardiovascular benefit derived from continued aspirin therapy as well as better characterize associated bleeding risk.

To clamp or not to clamp? Long-term functional outcomes for elective off-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether elective off-clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) affords long-term renal functional benefit compared with the on-clamp approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent elective LPN between 2006 and 2011. Patients were followed longitudinally for up to 5 years. In all, 315 patients with radiographic evidence of a solitary renal mass and normal-appearing contralateral kidney underwent elective LPN; 209 were performed on-clamp vs 106 off-clamp. One patient who required conversion from LPN to open PN was excluded from the study. Additionally, four patients in the on-clamp cohort who underwent subsequent radical nephrectomy for local-regional recurrence were excluded from longitudinal functional evaluation after their procedure. The primary objective was to evaluate differences in postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between hilar clamping groups. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with clamp times >30 min and those with baseline renal insufficiency (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m(2) ). Risk of developing worsened or new-onset renal insufficiency was also compared. RESULTS: The mean preoperative eGFR was similar between the on-clamp and off-clamp cohorts (80.7 vs 84.1 mL/min/1.73m(2) , P > 0.05). Univariable and multivariable analyses did not show significant differences in postoperative eGFR between both groups among all-comers, those with clamp times >30 min, and patients with baseline renal insufficiency. Risk of chronic kidney disease was not diminished by the off-clamp approach with up to 5 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Progressive recovery of renal function after hilar clamping in the elective setting eclipses short-term functional benefit achieved with off-clamp LPN by 6 months; there was no significant difference in eGFR or the percentage incidence of chronic kidney disease between the on-clamp and off-clamp cohorts with up to 5 years follow-up. As such, eliminating transient ischaemia during elective LPN does not confer clinical benefit.

In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in predicting prostate cancer on repeat biopsy; and to compare the cancer detection rates (CDRs) of MRI/transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided biopsy with standard 12-core biopsy in men with at least one previous negative biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled men with elevated or rising PSA levels and/or abnormal digital rectal examination into our MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy trial. Participants underwent a 3 T mpMRI with an endorectal coil. Three radiologists graded all suspicious lesions on a 5-point Likert scale. MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsies of suspicious prostate lesions and standard TRUS-guided 12-core biopsies were performed. Analysis of 140 eligible men with at least one previous negative biopsy was performed. We calculated CDRs and estimated area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of mpMRI in predicting any cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. RESULTS: The overall CDR was 65.0% (91/140). Higher level of suspicion on mpMRI was significantly associated with prostate cancer detection (P < 0.001) with an AUC of 0.744 compared with 0.653 and 0.680 for PSA level and PSA density, respectively. The CDRs of MRI/TRUS fusion-guided and standard 12-core biopsy were 52.1% (73/140) and 48.6% (68/140), respectively (P = 0.435). However, fusion biopsy was more likely to detect clinically significant prostate cancer when compared with the 12-core biopsy (47.9% vs 30.7%; P < 0.001). Of the cancers missed by 12-core biopsy, 20.9% (19/91) were clinically significant. Most cancers missed by 12-core biopsy (69.6%) were located in the anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone. Using a fusion-biopsy-only approach in men with an MRI suspicion score of ≥4 would have missed only 3.5% of clinically significant prostate cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Using mpMRI and subsequent MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy platform may improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in men with previous negative biopsies. Addition of a 12-core biopsy may be needed to avoid missing some clinically significant prostate cancers.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging outperforms the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator for high-grade (PCPTHG) prostate cancer (CaP) was developed to improve the detection of clinically significant CaP. In this study, the authors compared the performance of the PCPTHG against multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) in predicting men at risk of CaP. METHODS: Men with an abnormal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level or digital rectal examination (DRE) and a suspicious lesion on a 3-Tesla MP-MRI were enrolled prospectively. Three radiologists reviewed and graded all lesions on a 5-point Likert scale. Biopsy of suspicious lesion(s) was performed using a proprietary MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy system, after which 12-core biopsy was performed. A genitourinary pathologist reviewed all pathology slides. The performance of PCPTHG was compared with that of MP-MRI in predicting clinically significant CaP. RESULTS: Of 175 men who were eligible for analysis, 64.6% (113 of 175 men) were diagnosed with CaP, including 93 of 113 men (82.3%) who had clinically significant disease. Age, abnormal DRE, PSA, PSA density, prostate size, extraprostatic extension on MRI, apparent diffusion coefficient value, and MRI lesion size were identified as significant predictors of high-grade CaP (all P < .05). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of PCPTHG for predicting high-grade CaP was 0.676 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.592-0.751). By using a risk cutoff of ≥15% for biopsy as, proposed previously for high-grade CaP, sensitivity was 96.4%, specificity was 7.6%, and the false-positive rate was 51.1%. In contrast, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MP-MRI for high-grade CaP was 0.769 (95% CI, 0.703-0.834), and it was 0.812 (95% CI, 0.754-0.869) for clinically significant CaP. CONCLUSIONS: MP-MRI outperforms PCPTHG in predicting clinically significant CaP, and its application may help select patients who will benefit from CaP diagnosis and treatment.

Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE: Given the limitations of prostate specific antigen and standard biopsies for detecting prostate cancer, we evaluated the cancer detection rate and external validity of a magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy system used at the National Institutes of Health. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a phase III trial of a magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy system with participants enrolled between 2012 and 2013. A total of 153 men consented to the study and underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with an endorectal coil for clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Lesions were classified as low or moderate/high risk for prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy and standard 12-core prostate biopsy were performed and 105 men were eligible for analysis. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 65.8 years and mean prostate specific antigen was 9.5 ng/ml. The overall cancer detection rate was 62.9% (66 of 105 patients). The cancer detection rate in those with moderate/high risk on imaging was 72.3% (47 of 65) vs 47.5% (19 of 40) in those classified as low risk for prostate cancer (p<0.05). Mean tumor core length was 4.6 and 3.7 mm for fusion biopsy and standard 12-core biopsy, respectively (p<0.05). Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy detected prostate cancer that was missed by standard 12-core biopsy in 14.3% of cases (15 of 105), of which 86.7% (13 of 15) were clinically significant. This biopsy upgraded 23.5% of cancers (4 of 17) deemed clinically insignificant on 12-core biopsy to clinically significant prostate cancer necessitating treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy can improve prostate cancer detection. The results of this trial support the external validity of this platform and may be the next step in the evolution of prostate cancer management.

A Systematic Review of Family History, Race/Ethnicity, and Genetic Risk on Prostate Cancer Detection and Outcomes: Considerations in PSA-based Screening.

AIM: To investigate the role of family history, race/ethnicity, and genetics in prostate cancer (PCa) screening. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of articles from January 2013 through September 2023 that focused on the association of race/ethnicity and genetic factors on PCa detection. Of 10,815 studies, we identified 43 that fulfilled our pre-determined PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome) criteria. RESULTS: Men with ≥1 first-degree relative(s) with PCa are at increased risk of PCa, even with negative imaging and/or benign prostate biopsy. Black men have higher PCa risk, while Asian men have lower risk. Most of the differences in risks are attributable to environmental and socioeconomic factors; however, genetic differences may play a role. Among numerous pathogenic variants that increase PCa risk, BRCA2, MSH2, and HOXB13 mutations confer the highest risk of PCa. Polygenic risk score (PRS) models identify men at higher PCa risk for a given age and PSA; these models improve when considering other clinical factors and when the model population matches the study population's ancestry. CONCLUSIONS: Family history of PCa, race/ethnicity, pathogenic variants (particularly BRCA2, MSH2, and HOXB13), and PRS are associated with increased PCa risk and should be considered in shared decision-making to determine PCa screening regimens.