The function of Prostate Health Index in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in the PI-RADS 3 population: a multicenter prospective study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to identify patients in the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) 3 population who need biopsy by using prostate health index (PHI) and other clinical parameters in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies. METHODS: A total of 302 patients from four hospital were enrolled, and 92 patients with PI-RADS 3 were included finally. All patients were biopsy-naïve and had suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) with PSA level in 4-20 ng/ml and a normal digital rectal exam. Univariable and stepwise forward multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluated the risk factors. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of different cut-off value of PHI were calculated for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa). RESULTS: The overall patient's mean age was 65.65 ± 9.55 years, median PSA was 7.68 (5.28-12.07) ng/ml and median PHI was 43.80 (33.09-64.69). PCa was identified in 32.61% (30/92) of PI-RADS 3 and CSPCa was identified in 28.26% (26/92) of PI-RADS 3. The risk factors for detecting PCa and CSPCa in multivariable regression analysis were age and PHI. When the biopsy was restricted to those PHI ≥ 43.5, 42.39% unnecessary biopsied could avoid. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the detection of CSPCa in the PHI ≥ 43.5 were 92.31%, 63.64%, 50% and 95.45% respectively. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of PHI in the diagnosis of the PI-RADS 3 population may avoid many unnecessary biopsies. The multivariable models could increase the detection of cancer.

Effects of neoadjuvant VEGF­TKI treatment on surgery for renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta­analysis.

To evaluate the effects of neoadjuvant vascular endothelial growth factor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGF-TKI) treatment on surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), sources from Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases collected from inception to December, 2022 were used for analysis in the present study, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data regarding surgical outcomes were collected. The pooled effect sizes were calculated in terms of the risk ratio (RR)/standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to explore the source of heterogeneity within the data. In total, 9 identified articles involving 829 patients (336 in the neoadjuvant + surgery group; 493 in the surgery group) were included in the present study, according to the criteria. The results demonstrated that there were no significant differences in blood loss (SMD=-0.11; 95% CI, -0.63-0.41; P=0.68), postoperative length of hospital stay or total length of hospital stay (SMD=0.23; 95% CI, -0.55-1.01; P=0.57) or complications (RR=1.16; 95% CI, 0.80-1.67; P=0.44) between the two groups. However, neoadjuvant therapy reduced the operation time (SMD=-0.67; 95% CI, -1.25- -0.09; P=0.02) and resulted in a greater proportion of patients choosing partial nephrectomy (RR=1.84; 95% CI, 1.47-2.31; P<0.00001). In the subgroup analysis, the blood loss was significantly lower in patients with RCC with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus in the neoadjuvant group (SMD=-1.10; 95% CI, -1.82- -0.38; P=0.003). In conclusion, the results of the present study indicated that neoadjuvant VEGF-TKI treatment in patients with RCC shortened operation time, decreased blood loss and did not cause an increase in perioperative complications. In addition, this treatment modality may encourage patients to opt for partial nephrectomy to preserve renal function.

Different diagnostic strategies combining prostate health index and magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate cancer: A multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how prostate health index (PHI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) should be used in concert to improve diagnostic capacity for clinically significant prostate cancers (CsCaP) in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) between 4 and 20 ng/ml. METHODS: About 426 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in this study. Univariable and multivariable logistic analyses were performed to analyze the association between the clinical indicators and CaP/CsCaP. We used the Delong test to compare the differences in the area under the curve (AUC) values of four models for CaP and CsCaP. Decision curve analysis (DCA) and calibration plots were used to assess predictive performance. We compared clinical outcomes of different diagnostic strategies constructed using different combinations of the models by the chi-square test and the McNemar test. RESULTS: The AUC of PHI-MRI (a risk prediction model based on PHI and mpMRI) was 0.859, which was significantly higher than those of PHI (AUC = 0.792, P < 0.001) and mpMRI (AUC = 0.797, P < 0.001). PHI-MRI had a higher net benefit on DCA for predicting CaP and CsCaP in comparison to PHI and mpMRI. Adding the PHI-MRI in diagnostic strategies for CsCaP, such as use PHI-MRI alone or sequential use of PHI followed by PHI-MRI, could reduce the number of biopsies by approximately 20% compared to use PHI followed by mpMRI (256 vs 316, 257 vs 316, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The PHI-MRI model was superior to PHI and MRI alone. It may reduce the number of biopsies and ensure the detection rate of CsCaP under an appropriate sensitivity at the cost of an increased number of MRI scans.

Diagnostic Efficiency of Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value to Predict Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prostate-Specific Antigen between 4 and 20 ng/mL.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the predictive value of the pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV) and other systemic inflammatory markers, including the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), for prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) in patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value between 4 and 20 ng/mL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical data of 319 eligible patients who underwent prostate biopsies in our hospital from August 2019 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. CSPCa was defined as a "Gleason grade group of ≥2". A univariable logistic regression analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis were conducted to analyze the association between the PIV, SII, MLR, and PCa/CSPCa. For the inflammatory indicators included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis, we constructed models by combining the separate inflammatory indicator and other significant predictors and compared the area under the curve (AUC). A nomogram based on the PIV for PCa was developed. RESULTS: We included 148 PCa patients (including 127 CSPCa patients) and 171 non-PCa patients in total. The patients with PCa were older, had higher MLR, SII, PIV, and total PSA (TPSA) values, consumed more alcohol, and had lower free/total PSA (f/T) values than the other patients. Compared with the non-CSPCa group, the CSPCa group had higher BMI, MLR, PIV, TPSA values, consumed more alcohol, and had lower f/T values. The univariable regression analysis showed that drinking history, higher MLR, PIV, and TPSA values, and lower f/T values were independent predictors of PCa and CSPCa. The AUC of the PIV in the multivariable logistic regression model was higher than those of the MLR and SII. In addition, the diagnostic value of the PIV + PSA for PCa was better than the PSA value. However, the diagnostic value for CSPCa was not significantly different from that of using PSA alone, while the AUC of the PIV + PSA was higher than the individual indicator of the PSA value. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that for the patients who were diagnosed with PSA values between 4 and 20 ng/mL, the PIV and MLR are potential indicators for predicting PCa and CSPCa. In addition, our study indicates that the new inflammatory index PIV has clinical value in the diagnosis of PCa and CSPCa.

The effect of the enhanced recovery after surgery program on radical cystectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Background: Bladder cancer is the ninth most common malignant tumor worldwide. As an effective evidence-based multidisciplinary protocol, the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program is practiced in many surgical disciplines. However, the function of ERAS after radical cystectomy remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to research the impact of ERAS on radical cystectomy. Methods: A systematic literature search on PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted in April 2022 to identify the studies that performed the ERAS program in radical cystectomy. Studies were selected, data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers, and quality was assessed using a random effects model to calculate the overall effect size. The odds ratio and standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) served as the summary statistics for the meta-analysis. A sensitivity analysis was subsequently performed. Results: A total of 25 studies with 4,083 patients were enrolled. The meta-analysis showed that the complications (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.63-0.90), transfusion rate (OR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.39-0.90), readmission rate (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64-0.96), length of stay (SMD = -0.79; 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.17), and time to first flatus (SMD = -1.16; 95% CI: -1.58 to -0.74) were significantly reduced in the ERAS group. However, no significance was found in 90-day mortality and urine leakage. Conclusion: The ERAS program for radical cystectomy can effectively decrease the risk of overall complications, postoperative ileus, readmission rate, transfusion rate, length of stay, and time to first flatus in patients who underwent radical cystectomy with relative safety. Systematic Review Registration: https://inplasy.com/, identifier INPLASY202250075.