SPARED Collaboration: Patient Selection for Partial Gland Ablation in Men with Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The SPARED CRN (Study of Prostate Ablation Related Energy Devices Coordinated Registry Network) is a private-public partnership between academic and community urologists, the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), the Medical Device Epidemiology Network and device manufacturers to examine the safety and effectiveness of technologies for partial gland ablation in men with localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report on a recent workshop at the FDA with thought leaders to discuss a critical framework for partial gland ablation, focusing on patient selection, surgical planning, followup, study design and appropriate comparators in terms of adverse events and cancer control outcomes. We summarize salient points from experts in urology, oncology and epidemiology that were presented and discussed in an open forum. RESULTS: Given the challenges in achieving patient and physician equipoise to perform a randomized trial, as well as an inherent paradigm shift when comparing partial gland ablation (inability to assess prostate specific antigen recurrence) to whole gland treatments, the group focused on objective performance criteria and goals as a platform to guide the creation of single arm studies in the SPARED CRN. CONCLUSIONS: This summit lays the foundation for prospective, multi-center data collection and evaluation of novel medical devices and drug/device combinations for partial gland ablation.

Decipher test impacts decision making among patients considering adjuvant and salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy: Interim results from the Multicenter Prospective PRO-IMPACT study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer and their providers face uncertainty as they consider adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or salvage radiotherapy (SRT) after undergoing radical prostatectomy. The authors prospectively evaluated the impact of the Decipher test, which predicts metastasis risk after radical prostatectomy, on decision making for ART and SRT. METHODS: A total of 150 patients who were considering ART and 115 who were considering SRT were enrolled. Providers submitted a management recommendation before processing the Decipher test and again at the time of receipt of the test results. Patients completed validated surveys on prostate cancer (PCa)-specific decisional effectiveness and PCa-related anxiety. RESULTS: Before the Decipher test, observation was recommended for 89% of patients considering ART and 58% of patients considering SRT. After Decipher testing, 18% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 12%-25%) of treatment recommendations changed in the ART arm, including 31% among high-risk patients; and 32% (95% CI, 24%-42%) of management recommendations changed in the salvage arm, including 56% among high-risk patients. Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) scores were better after viewing Decipher test results (ART arm: median DCS before Decipher, 25 and after Decipher, 19 [P<.001]; SRT arm: median DCS before Decipher, 27 and after Decipher, 23 [P<.001]). PCa-specific anxiety changed after Decipher testing; fear of PCa disease recurrence in the ART arm (P = .02) and PCa-specific anxiety in the SRT arm (P = .05) decreased significantly among low-risk patients. Decipher results reported per 5% increase in 5-year metastasis probability were associated with the decision to pursue ART (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.19-1.85) and SRT (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.09-1.81) in multivariable logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of Decipher test results was associated with treatment decision making and improved decisional effectiveness among men with PCa who were considering ART and SRT. Cancer 2017;123:2850-59. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Impact of the Cell Cycle Progression Test on Physician and Patient Treatment Selection for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The cell cycle progression test is a validated molecular assay that assesses prostate cancer specific disease progression and mortality risk when combined with clinicopathological parameters. We present the results from PROCEDE-1000, a large, prospective registry designed to evaluate the impact of the cell cycle progression test on shared treatment decision making for patients newly diagnosed with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Untreated patients with newly diagnosed prostate adenocarcinoma were enrolled in the study and the cell cycle progression test was performed on the initial prostate biopsy tissue. A set of 4 sequential surveys tracked changes relative to initial therapy recommendations (before cell cycle progression) based on clinicopathological parameters following physician review of the cell cycle progression test result, physician/patient review of the cell cycle progression test results and a minimum of 3 months of clinical followup (actual treatment). RESULTS: Of the 1,596 patients enrolled in this registry 1,206 were eligible for analysis. There was a significant reduction in the treatment burden recorded at each successive evaluation (p <0.0001), with the mean number of treatments per patient decreasing from 1.72 before the cell cycle progression test to 1.16 in actual followup. The cell cycle progression test caused a change in actual treatment in 47.8% of patients. Of these changes 72.1% were reductions and 26.9% were increases in treatment. For each clinical risk category there was a significant change in treatment modality (intervention vs nonintervention) before vs after cell cycle progression testing (p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: The cell cycle progression test has a significant impact in assisting physicians and patients reach personalized treatment decisions.

A randomized, double-blind, solifenacin succinate versus placebo control, phase 4, multicenter study evaluating urinary continence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Bladder dysfunction influences recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study evaluating solifenacin vs placebo on return to continence in patients who were still incontinent 7 to 21 days after catheter removal after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A wireless personal digital assistant was given to patients the day of catheter removal. Encrypted answers were transmitted daily to dedicated servers. After a 7 to 21-day treatment-free washout period, patients requiring 2 to 10 pads per day for 7 consecutive days were randomized (1:1) to 5 mg solifenacin daily or placebo. The primary end point was time from first dose to continence defined as 0 pads per day or a dry security pad for 3 consecutive days. Secondary end points included proportion of patients continent at end of study, average change in pads per day number and quality of life assessments. RESULTS: A total of 1,086 screened patients recorded personal digital assistant information. Overall 640 patients were randomized to solifenacin vs placebo and 17 failed to take medication. There was no difference in time to continence (p=0.17). Continence was achieved by study end in 91 of 313 (29%) vs 66 of 309 (21%), respectively (p=0.04). Pads per day change from baseline was -3.2 and -2.9, respectively (p=0.03). Dry mouth was the only common adverse event seen in 6.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Constipation rates were similar. The overall rate of continence in the entire population from screening to end of study was 73%. CONCLUSIONS: There was no effect on primary outcome but some secondary end points benefited the solifenacin arm. The study provides level 1B clinical evidence for continence outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Oncocytoma of the adrenal gland medulla.

We report an unprecedented case of an oncocytoma of the adrenal gland medulla in a 61-year-old woman. The patient presented with right flank pain and hematuria. Computed tomographic studies revealed a right adrenal gland mass that measured 2 cm, which was subsequently excised laparoscopically. Grossly, the tumor in the medulla measured 1.9 × 1.2 cm, weighed 5 g, and had a solid tan-brown cut surface. Histologically, it consisted of large tumor cells containing eosinophilic granular cytoplasm arranged in trabecular and nodular patterns. Electron microscopy revealed closely packed mitochondria in the cytoplasm of almost all tumor cells. The tumor cells were immunohistochemically positive for vimentin. The patient resumed usual activities 2 weeks after surgery, and at 6-month follow-up, she is doing well.

Permanent Deactivation of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis via Puncture.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our technique and early results for inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) deactivation via puncture and drainage in the office setting to avoid penile explanting interventions in high-risk surgical patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with high perioperative risk who had undergone IPP prosthesis puncture in the office setting between March 2020 and May 2021 was performed. Variables included age, the reason for penile prosthesis implantation and deactivation, time frame from implantation to deactivation, type of penile implant, follow-up time, and complications. Clinical information and procedural consent from patients with mental impairment were obtained from caretakers or legal guardians. RESULTS: In all the cases, the implants were in a good position and cycled well without difficulty before undergoing the drainage. Ten patients underwent the deactivation procedure, with ages ranging from 81 to 93 years old (mean 88 ± 3.74), 9 cases had a dementia diagnosis, and 1 case of penile implant aversion. Mean follow-up was 8.4 months ± 2.3, and there were no reported complications during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Permanent deactivation of IPP via in-office puncture and drainage represents a safe, feasible, and reliable option for those patients with multiple comorbidities and caretakers who desire removal of normally cycling, well-positioned, and uninfected penile implants. We strongly recommend all our patients with severe cognitive decline have their implants devices punctured to prevent any potential complications.

mpMRI-US Fusion-Guided Targeted Cryotherapy in Patients with Primary Localized Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Analysis of Oncological and Functional Outcomes.

Targeted therapy (TT) for prostate cancer (PCa) aims to ablate the malignant lesion with an adequate margin of safety in order to obtain similar oncological outcomes, but with less toxicity than radical treatments. The main aim of this study was to evaluate the recurrence rate (RR) in patients with primary localized PCa undergoing mpMRI/US fusion targeted cryotherapy (FTC). A secondary objective was to evaluate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a predictor of recurrences. We designed a prospective single-center single-cohort study. Patients with primary localized PCa, mono or multifocal lesions, PSA ≤ 15 ng/mL, and a Gleason score (GS) ≤ 4 + 3 undergoing FTC were enrolled. RR was chosen as the primary outcome. Recurrence was defined as the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer in the treated areas. PSA values measured at different times were tested as predictors of recurrence. Continuous variables were assessed with the Bayesian t-test and categorical assessments with the chix-squared test. Univariate and logistic regression assessment were used for predictions. A total of 75 cases were included in the study. Ten subjects developed a recurrence (RR: 15.2%), while fifty-six (84.8%) patients showed a recurrence-free status. A %PSA drop of 31.5% during the first 12 months after treatment predicted a recurrence with a sensitivity of 53.8% and a specificity of 79.2%. A PSA drop of 55.3% 12 months after treatment predicted a recurrence with a sensitivity of 91.7% and a specificity of 51.9%. FTC for primary localized PCa seems to be associated with a low but not negligible percentage of recurrences. Serum PSA levels may have a role indicating RR.

Surgery confounds biology: the predictive value of stage-, grade- and prostate-specific antigen for recurrence after radical prostatectomy as a function of surgeon experience.

Statistical models predicting cancer recurrence after surgery are based on biologic variables. We have shown previously that prostate cancer recurrence is related to both tumor biology and to surgical technique. Here, we evaluate the association between several biological predictors and biochemical recurrence across varying surgical experience. The study included two separate cohorts: 6,091 patients treated by open radical prostatectomy and an independent replication set of 2,298 patients treated laparoscopically. We calculated the odds ratios for biological predictors of biochemical recurrence-stage, Gleason grade and prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-and also the predictive accuracy (area under the curve, AUC) of a multivariable model, for subgroups of patients defined by the experience of their surgeon. In the open cohort, the odds ratio for Gleason score 8+ and advanced pathologic stage, though not PSA or Gleason score 7, increased dramatically when patients treated by surgeons with lower levels of experience were excluded (Gleason 8+: odds ratios 5.6 overall vs. 13.0 for patients treated by surgeons with 1,000+ prior cases; locally advanced disease: odds ratios of 6.6 vs. 12.2, respectively). The AUC of the multivariable model was 0.750 for patients treated by surgeons with 50 or fewer cases compared to 0.849 for patients treated by surgeons with 500 or more. Although predictiveness was lower overall for the independent replication set cohort, the main findings were replicated. Surgery confounds biology. Although our findings have no direct clinical implications, studies investigating biological variables as predictors of outcome after curative resection of cancer should consider the impact of surgeon-specific factors.

Posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction during robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a phase II randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction following radical prostatectomy was designed to improve early urinary continence. We executed a randomized clinical trial to test this conjecture in men undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a phase II randomized clinical trial intended to detect a 25% difference in 3-month continence outcomes defined by a patient response of 0 or 1 to question 5 of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire urinary domain, comparing standard running vesicourethral anastomosis (controls) to posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction followed by standard running vesicourethral anastomosis (posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction treated). Patients had clinically localized prostate cancer and were blinded. Surgeons were notified of computer randomization after prostate excision. Further continence outcomes were assessed by analysis of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire questions 1 and 12, International Prostate Symptom Score and 24-hour pad weights. Statistical significance was defined as p <0.05 RESULTS: A total of 94 patients were randomized, 47 to each arm. Preoperative clinical and functional variables were equivalent between study arms. There were no complications associated with either anastomotic technique. Of the 87 evaluable patients 62 (71.3%) met our 3-month continence definition. The null hypothesis was not rejected as 33 (81%) controls and 29 (63%) posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction treated patients were continent at 3 months (chi-square p = 0.07, Fisher exact p = 0.1). Likewise there was no significant difference between arms in 24-hour pad weights (p = 0.14), International Prostate Symptom Score (p = 0.4), absence of daily leaks (p = 0.4) or perception of urinary function (p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized clinical trial posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction offered no advantage for return of early continence after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.

Robotic radical prostatectomy: present and future.

The last 10 years have witnessed unprecedented evolution regarding de surgical removal of the prostate gland. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy broke the open paradigm and started to generate great excitement and expectations. Shortly however, robot-assisted, laparoscopic - Robotic Surgery - emerged to address a fundamental pitfall of prostate laparoscopic surgery: execution reproducibility. Today, robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is the most used surgical approach to remove the prostate gland. Consistent advantages of this technique are: a shorter convalescent state, marked decrease in blood loss and in experienced hands, shorter average surgical times. Importantly it served to highlight the importance of outcomes as ultimate judge of a procedure success. The data suggest equivalency in long-term functional and oncological outcomes, while clear advantages in the short run: perioperative outcomes with patient rapid return to productive state. That said, the major challenge for robotic surgeons still remains: establish a paradigm that breaks with the tradition and prevents biased reporting due to technology and marketing enthusiasm, but rather takes a critical approach based in prospective, controlled, randomize clinical trials. If the latter objective is reached, urologic robotic surgeons will deliver counseling based on clinical evidence delivering major progress for our Urology field.

Emerging biomarkers for prostate cancer diagnosis, staging, and prognosis.

The introduction and widespread adoption of PSA has revolutionized the way prostate cancer is diagnosed and treated. However, the use of PSA has also led to over-diagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer resulting in controversy about its use for screening. PSA also has limited predictive accuracy for predicting outcomes after treatment and for making clinical decisions about adjuvant and salvage therapies. Hence, there is an urgent need for novel biomarkers to supplement PSA for detection and management of prostate cancer. Despite the progress in developing new biomarkers, several obstacles remain before such biomarkers can be clinically used. These challenges include analytical and regulatory barriers, issues with study design and data analysis that lead to lack of reproducibility of promising results, and the lack of large scale trials to adequately assess the utility of promising biomarkers. In this article we discuss the challenges in biomarker research and the statistical considerations for biomarker evaluation. There is a plethora of promising blood and urine based biomarkers. For the purpose of this review, we focus on PSA derived forms, human kallikrein 2, Early Prostate Cancer Antigen, Transforming Growth Factor-Beta 1 and Interleukin-6, Endoglin, PCA3, AMACR and ETS Gene Fusions. These biomarkers have shown promise in early studies and are at various stages of development. However, in the future it is very likely that a panel of biomarkers will be used to achieve sufficient degree of certainty in order to guide clinical decisions. To be able to be used commercially such a panel will have to answer clinically relevant questions in a simple and cost-effective way.

Improved prediction of prostate cancer recurrence through systems pathology.

We have developed an integrated, multidisciplinary methodology, termed systems pathology, to generate highly accurate predictive tools for complex diseases, using prostate cancer for the prototype. To predict the recurrence of prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy, defined by rising serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), we used machine learning to develop a model based on clinicopathologic variables, histologic tumor characteristics, and cell type-specific quantification of biomarkers. The initial study was based on a cohort of 323 patients and identified that high levels of the androgen receptor, as detected by immunohistochemistry, were associated with a reduced time to PSA recurrence. The model predicted recurrence with high accuracy, as indicated by a concordance index in the validation set of 0.82, sensitivity of 96%, and specificity of 72%. We extended this approach, employing quantitative multiplex immunofluorescence, on an expanded cohort of 682 patients. The model again predicted PSA recurrence with high accuracy, concordance index being 0.77, sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 72%. The androgen receptor was selected, along with 5 clinicopathologic features (seminal vesicle invasion, biopsy Gleason score, extracapsular extension, preoperative PSA, and dominant prostatectomy Gleason grade) as well as 2 histologic features (texture of epithelial nuclei and cytoplasm in tumor only regions). This robust platform has broad applications in patient diagnosis, treatment management, and prognostication.

Variations among experienced surgeons in cancer control after open radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Complications and functional outcomes after prostate surgery vary among surgeons to a greater extent than may be accounted for by chance. This excessive variation is known as heterogeneity. We explored whether there is also heterogeneity among high volume surgeons with respect to cancer control after surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort consisted of 7,725 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with open radical prostatectomy at 4 major American academic medical centers from 1987 to 2003 by 1 of 54 surgeons. We defined biochemical recurrence as serum prostate specific antigen 0.4 ng/ml or greater followed by a higher level. Multivariate random effects models were used to evaluate prostate cancer recurrence heterogeneity among surgeons after adjusting for case mix (prostate specific antigen, pathological stage and grade), surgery year and surgeon experience. RESULTS: We found statistically significant heterogeneity in the prostate cancer recurrence rate independent of surgeon experience (p = 0.002). Seven experienced surgeons had an adjusted 5-year prostate cancer recurrence rate of less than 10% while another 5 had a rate that exceeded 25%. Significant heterogeneity remained on sensitivity analysis adjusting for possible differences in followup, patient selection and stage migration. CONCLUSIONS: Patient risk of recurrence may differ depending on which of 2 surgeons is seen even if the surgeons have similar experience levels. Surgical randomized trials are imperative to determine and characterize the roots of these variations.

Surgical anatomy of radical prostatectomy: periprostatic fascial anatomy and overview of the urinary sphincters.

SUMMARY: Advances in the understanding of prostate and pelvic anatomy in recent years made a substantial contribution to improve the surgical technique for the treatment of prostate cancer (PC) with the potential preservation of anatomic structures responsible for erectile and urinary function postoperatively. Knowledge of these anatomic structures is key to achieve a complete removal of the prostate and seminal vesicles while preserving the best possible quality of life. The literature on prostate and pelvic anatomy has been reviewed and an updated notion of the surgical anatomy is herein provided.

Feasibility of in-office MRI-targeted partial gland cryoablation for prostate cancer: an IDEAL stage 2A study.

OBJECTIVES: Cryoablation for prostate cancer is typically performed under general anaesthesia. We explore the safety, feasibility and costs of in-office MRI-targeted prostate partial gland cryoablation (PGC) under local anaesthesia. We hypothesise that an office-based procedure under local anaesthesia may yield greater patient convenience and lower health costs with similar outcomes to a general anaesthesia approach. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS/SETTING/INTERVENTIONS: Retrospective study of men diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer (grade group (GG) ≥2) who elected to undergo in-office PGC under local anaesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A total of 55 men with GG ≥2 prostate cancer underwent PGC under local anaesthesia, and 35 of 43 men (81.4%) who attained ≥6 months of follow-up post-treatment underwent MRI-targeted surveillance biopsy. We used MRI findings and targeted biopsy to characterise post-PGC oncological outcomes. Complications were categorised using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Expanded Prostate Cancer Index-Clinical Practice was used to characterise urinary and sexual function scores at baseline, 4 and 9 months post-PGC. Time-driven activity-based costing was used to determine healthcare costs of in-office PGC. RESULTS: Five (9.1%) men experienced CTCAE score 3 adverse events. Urinary and sexual function did not change significantly from baseline to 4 months (p=0.20 and p=0.08, respectively) and 9 months (p=0.23 and p=0.67, respectively). Twenty-two men (62.9%) had no cancer or GG1 and 13 (37.1%) men had GG≥2 on post-PGC biopsy. Moreover, the median cost of in-office PGC was US$4,463.05 (range US$4,087.19-US7,238.16) with disposables comprising 69% of the cost. CONCLUSIONS: In-office PGC is feasible under local anaesthesia with favourable functional outcome preservation and adverse events profile at significantly lower costs compared with a general anaesthesia approach.

Clinical Utility of a Genomic Classifier in Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy: The PRO-IMPACT Trial.

PURPOSE: The optimal management of men with prostate cancer at high risk of recurrence postradical prostatectomy is controversial. The clinical utility of the Decipher test was evaluated prospectively on postoperative treatment decisions and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the study, 246 eligible men across 19 centers were enrolled. Patients were dichotomized into those considering adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy (ART or SRT). Participating providers submitted a management recommendation before and after receiving the Decipher test results. Treatment received within 12 months and a validated survey on prostate cancer-related anxiety were collected longitudinally. RESULTS: Pre-Decipher, treatment was recommended for 12% and 40% for the ART and SRT arms, respectively. Post-Decipher, 17% and 30% of treatment recommendations changed in the ART and SRT arms, respectively. Post-Decipher treatment recommendation was administered 78% and 76% of the time in the ART and SRT arms, respectively. Multivariable analysis confirmed that the Decipher score was an independent predictor for change in management for both adjuvant and salvage patients. The number needed to test to change management for one patient was 4. Cancer-specific anxiety decreased among Decipher risk categories in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Use of Decipher postradical prostatectomy test was associated with postoperative treatment decisions. Overall, high Decipher risk was associated with an increase in treatment intensity whereas low risk scores were associated with a decrease in therapy administered independent of clinical and pathologic risk factors.

Is it necessary to remove the seminal vesicles completely at radical prostatectomy? decision curve analysis of European Society of Urologic Oncology criteria.

PURPOSE: A publication on behalf of the European Society of Urological Oncology questioned the need for removing the seminal vesicles during radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml except when biopsy Gleason score is greater than 6 or there are greater than 50% positive biopsy cores. We applied the European Society of Urological Oncology algorithm to an independent data set to determine its predictive value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on 1,406 men who underwent radical prostatectomy and seminal vesicle removal between 1998 and 2004 were analyzed. Patients with and without seminal vesicle invasion were classified as positive or negative according to the European Society of Urological Oncology algorithm. RESULTS: Of 90 cases with seminal vesicle invasion 81 (6.4%) were positive for 90% sensitivity, while 656 of 1,316 without seminal vesicle invasion were negative for 50% specificity. The negative predictive value was 98.6%. In decision analytic terms if the loss in health when seminal vesicles are invaded and not completely removed is considered at least 75 times greater than when removing them unnecessarily, the algorithm proposed by the European Society of Urological Oncology should not be used. CONCLUSIONS: Whether to use the European Society of Urological Oncology algorithm depends not only on its accuracy, but also on the relative clinical consequences of false-positive and false-negative results. Our threshold of 75 is an intermediate value that is difficult to interpret, given uncertainties about the benefit of seminal vesicle sparing and harm associated with untreated seminal vesicle invasion. We recommend more formal decision analysis to determine the clinical value of the European Society of Urological Oncology algorithm.