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.

Prospective Multicenter Comparison of Open and Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: The PROST-QA/RP2 Consortium.

PURPOSE: Our goal was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in a multicenter study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated men with localized prostate cancer at 11 high-volume academic medical centers in the United States from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and the PROST-QA/RP2 cohorts (2010-2013) with a pre-specified goal of comparing RALP (549) and ORP (545). We measured longitudinal patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at pre-treatment and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months, and pathological and perioperative outcomes/complications. RESULTS: Demographics, cancer characteristics, and margin status were similar between surgical approaches. ORP subjects were more likely to undergo lymphadenectomy (89% vs 47%; p <0.01) and nerve sparing (94% vs 89%; p <0.01). RALP vs ORP subjects experienced less mean intraoperative blood loss (192 vs 805 mL; p <0.01), shorter mean hospital stay (1.6 vs 2.1 days; p <0.01), and fewer blood transfusions (1% vs 4%; p <0.01), wound infections (2% vs 4%; p=0.02), other infections (1% vs 4%; p <0.01), deep venous thromboses (0.5% vs 2%; p=0.04), and bladder neck contractures requiring dilation (1.6% vs 8.3%; p <0.01). RALP subjects reported less pain (p=0.04), less activity interference (p <0.01) and higher incision satisfaction (p <0.01). Surgical approach (RALP vs ORP) was not a significant predictor of longitudinal HRQOL change in any HRQOL domain. CONCLUSIONS: In high-volume academic centers, RALP and ORP patients may expect similar long-term HRQOL outcomes. Overall, RALP patients have less pain, shorter hospital stays, and fewer post-surgical complications such as blood transfusions, infections, deep venous thromboses, and bladder neck contractures.

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.

Head to head randomized trial of two decision aids for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: While many studies have tested the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to not receiving any DA, far fewer have tested how different types of DAs affect key outcomes such as treatment choice, patient-provider communication, or decision process/satisfaction. This study tested the impact of a complex medical oriented DA compared to a more simplistic decision aid designed to encourage shared decision making in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: 1028 men at 4 VA hospitals were recruited after a scheduled prostate biopsy. Participants completed baseline measures and were randomized to receive either a simple or complex DA. Participants were men with clinically localized cancer (N = 285) by biopsy and who completed a baseline survey. Survey measures: baseline (biopsy); immediately prior to seeing the physician for biopsy results (pre- encounter); one week following the physician visit (post-encounter). Outcome measures included treatment preference and treatment received, knowledge, preference for shared decision making, decision making process, and patients' use and satisfaction with the DA. RESULTS: Participants who received the simple DA had greater interest in shared decision making after reading the DA (p = 0.03), found the DA more helpful (p's < 0.01) and were more likely to be considering watchful waiting (p = 0.03) compared to those receiving the complex DA at Time 2. While these differences were present before patients saw their urologists, there was no difference between groups in the treatment patients received. CONCLUSIONS: The simple DA led to increased desire for shared decision making and for less aggressive treatment. However, these differences disappeared following the physician visit, which appeared to change patients' treatment preferences. Trial registration This trial was pre-registered prior to recruitment of participants.

Photoacoustic spectral analysis at ultraviolet wavelengths for characterizing the Gleason grades of prostate cancer.

The diagnosis of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) has relied on microscopic architectures, namely Gleason patterns, of tissues extracted through core biopsies. Technology capable of assessing the tissue architecture without tissue extraction will reduce the invasiveness of PCa diagnosis and improve diagnostic accuracy by allowing for more sampling locations. Our recently developed photoacoustic spectral analysis (PASA) has achieved quantification of tissue architectural heterogeneity interstitially. Taking advantage of the unique optical absorption of cell nuclei at ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths, this study investigated PASA at 266 nm for quantifying the tissue architecture heterogeneity in prostates. The results have shown significant differences among the normal, early cancer, and late cancer stages in mouse prostates ex vivo and in vivo (n=20, p<0.05). The study with human samples ex vivo has shown a correlation of 0.80 (n=11, p<0.05) between PASA quantification and pathologic diagnosis.

Health-related quality of life in Japanese patients with bladder cancer measured by a newly developed Japanese version of the Bladder Cancer Index.

INTRODUCTION: We validated a Japanese version of the Bladder Cancer Index (BCI) as a tool for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in bladder cancer patients treated with various surgical procedures. METHODS: The reliability and validity of the Japanese BCI were examined in 397 Japanese patients with bladder cancer via cross-sectional analysis. The patients simultaneously completed the Short Form (SF)-12, EQ-5D, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General and Bladder (FACT-G and FACT-BL). The differences in BCI subscales among various treatment groups were analyzed. RESULTS: This study involved 397 patients (301 males and 96 females), with a mean age of 70 years and a median disease duration of 29 months (IQR: 12-66 months). Of these patients, 221 underwent transurethral resection of a bladder tumor, and 176 patients underwent radical cystectomy (ileal conduit: 101 patients, ileal neobladder: 49, and ureterostomy: 26). Cronbach's alpha coefficient was ≥ 0.78 for all subscales, except the bowel bother subscale. Despite moderate correlations being detected between the function and bother score in urinary and bowel domains, the sexual function score was inversely correlated with the sexual bother score (r = - 0.19). A missing value percentage of > 15% was associated with old age (p < 0.05). The mean domain scores differed significantly among distinct clinically relevant treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although revisions are needed to make it easier for elderly patients to comprehend, we confirmed the reliability and validity of the Japanese BCI. The Japanese BCI could be used for cross-cultural assessments of HRQOL in bladder cancer patients.

Optimizing active surveillance strategies to balance the competing goals of early detection of grade progression and minimizing harm from biopsies.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer includes follow-up with serial prostate biopsies. The optimal biopsy frequency during follow-up has not been determined. The goal of this investigation was to use longitudinal AS biopsy data to assess whether the frequency of biopsy could be reduced without substantially prolonging the time to the detection of disease with a Gleason score ≥ 7. METHODS: With data from 1375 men with low-risk prostate cancer enrolled in AS at Johns Hopkins, a hidden Markov model was developed to estimate the probability of undersampling at diagnosis, the annual probability of grade progression, and the 10-year cumulative probability of reclassification or progression to Gleason score ≥ 7. It simulated 1024 potential AS biopsy strategies for the 10 years after diagnosis. For each of these strategies, the model predicted the mean delay in the detection of disease with a Gleason score ≥ 7. RESULTS: The model estimated the 10-year cumulative probability of reclassification from a Gleason score of 6 to a Gleason score ≥ 7 to be 40.0%. The probability of undersampling at diagnosis was 9.8%, and the annual progression probability for men with a Gleason score of 6 was 4.0%. On the basis of these estimates, a simulation of an annual biopsy strategy estimated the mean time to the detection of disease with a Gleason score ≥ 7 to be 14.1 months; however, several strategies eliminated biopsies with only small delays (<12 months) in detecting grade progression. CONCLUSIONS: Although annual biopsy for low-risk men on AS is associated with the shortest time to the detection of disease with a Gleason score ≥ 7, several alternative strategies may allow less frequent biopsying without sizable delays in detecting grade progression. Cancer 2018;124:698-705. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Development of a Nationally Representative Coordinated Registry Network for Prostate Ablation Technologies.

PURPOSE: The accumulation of data through a prospective, multicenter coordinated registry network is a practical way to gather real world evidence on the performance of novel prostate ablation technologies. Urological oncologists, targeted biopsy experts, industry representatives and representatives of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) convened to discuss the role, feasibility and important data elements of a coordinated registry network to assess new and existing prostate ablation technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multiround Delphi consensus approach was performed which included the opinion of 15 expert urologists, representatives of the FDA and leadership from high intensity focused ultrasound device manufacturers. Stakeholders provided input in 3 consecutive rounds with conference calls following each round to obtain consensus on remaining items. Participants agreed that these elements initially developed for high intensity focused ultrasound are compatible with other prostate ablation technologies. Coordinated registry network elements were reviewed and supplemented with data elements from the FDA common study metrics. RESULTS: The working group reached consensus on capturing specific patient demographics, treatment details, oncologic outcomes, functional outcomes and complications. Validated health related quality of life questionnaires were selected to capture patient reported outcomes, including the IIEF-5 (International Index of Erectile Function-5), the I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), the EPIC-26 (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26) and the MSHQ-EjD (Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Dysfunction). Group consensus was to obtain followup multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and prostate biopsy approximately 12 months after ablation with additional imaging or biopsy performed as clinically indicated. CONCLUSIONS: A national prostate ablation coordinated registry network brings forth vital practice pattern and outcomes data for this emerging treatment paradigm in the United States. Our multiple stakeholder consensus identifies critical elements to evaluate new and existing energy modalities and devices.

Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how best to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and targeted MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations and whether it can be cost-effective. METHODS: A Markov model of PCa onset and progression was developed to estimate the health and economic consequences of PCa screening with MRI. Patients underwent PSA screening from ages 55 to 69 years. Patients with elevated PSA concentrations (>4 ng/mL) underwent MRI, followed by targeted fusion or combined (standard + targeted fusion) biopsy on positive MRI, and standard or no biopsy on negative MRI. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score on MRI was used to determine biopsy decisions. Deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated for each strategy. RESULTS: With a negative MRI, standard biopsy was more expensive and had lower QALYs than performing no biopsy. The optimum screening strategy (ICER $23 483/QALY) recommended combined biopsy for patients with PI-RADS score ≥3 and no biopsy for patients with PI-RADS score <3, and reduced the number of screening biopsies by 15%. Threshold analysis suggests MRI continues to be cost-effective when the sensitivity and specificity of MRI and combined biopsy are simultaneously reduced by 19 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests MRI followed by targeted MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy can be a cost-effective approach to the early detection of PCa.

AUA White Paper on Nonneurogenic Chronic Urinary Retention: Consensus Definition, Treatment Algorithm, and Outcome End Points.

PURPOSE: The AUA (American Urological Association) QIPS (Quality Improvement and Patient Safety) committee created a white paper on the diagnosis and management of nonneurogenic chronic urinary retention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Recommendations for the white paper were based on a review of the literature and consensus expert opinion from the workgroup. RESULTS: The workgroup defined nonneurogenic chronic urinary retention as an elevated post-void residual of greater than 300 mL that persisted for at least 6 months and documented on 2 or more separate occasions. It is proposed that chronic urinary retention should be categorized by risk (high vs low) and symptomatology (symptomatic versus asymptomatic). High risk chronic urinary retention was defined as hydronephrosis on imaging, stage 3 chronic kidney disease or recurrent culture proven urinary tract infection or urosepsis. Symptomatic chronic urinary retention was defined as subjectively moderate to severe urinary symptoms impacting quality of life and/or a recent history of catheterization. A treatment algorithm was developed predicated on stratifying patients with chronic urinary retention first by risk and then by symptoms. The proposed 4 primary outcomes that should be assessed to determine effectiveness of retention treatment are 1) symptom improvement, 2) risk reduction, 3) successful trial of voiding without catheterization, and 4) stability of symptoms and risk over time. CONCLUSIONS: Defining and categorizing nonneurogenic chronic urinary retention, creating a treatment algorithm and proposing treatment end points will hopefully spur comparative research that will ultimately lead to a better understanding of this challenging condition.

Timing of Adverse Prostate Cancer Reclassification on First Surveillance Biopsy: Results from the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study.

PURPOSE: During active surveillance for localized prostate cancer, the timing of the first surveillance biopsy varies. We analyzed the Canary PASS (Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study) to determine biopsy timing influence on rates of prostate cancer adverse reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 1,085 participants in PASS, 421 had fewer than 34% of cores involved with cancer and Gleason sum 6 or less, and thereafter underwent on-study active surveillance biopsy. Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason sum and/or 34% or more of cores with prostate cancer. First active surveillance biopsy reclassification rates were categorized as less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression determined association between reclassification and first biopsy timing. RESULTS: Of 421 men, 89 (21.1%) experienced reclassification at the first active surveillance biopsy. Median time from prostate cancer diagnosis to first active surveillance biopsy was 11 months (IQR 7.8-13.8). Reclassification rates at less than 8, 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 24%, 19% and 22% (p = 0.65). On multivariable analysis, compared to men biopsied at less than 8 months the OR of reclassification at 8 to 13 and greater than 13 months were 0.88 (95% CI 0.5,1.6) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.5,1.9), respectively. Prostate specific antigen density 0.15 or greater (referent less than 0.15, OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1, 4.1) and body mass index 35 kg/m2 or greater (referent less than 25 kg/m2, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1,5.7) were associated with increased odds of reclassification. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of the first active surveillance biopsy was not associated with increased adverse reclassification but prostate specific antigen density and body mass index were. In low risk patients on active surveillance, it may be reasonable to perform the first active surveillance biopsy at a later time, reducing the overall cost and morbidity of active surveillance.

Racial Variation in the Utility of Urinary Biomarkers PCA3 and T2ERG in a Large Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: To our knowledge it is unknown whether urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer have added utility to clinical risk calculators in different racial groups. We examined the utility of urinary biomarkers added to clinical risk calculators for predicting prostate cancer in African American and nonAfrican American men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Demographics, PCPT (Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial) risk scores, data on the biomarkers data PCA3 (prostate cancer antigen 3) and T2ERG (transmembrane protease serine 2 and v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog gene fusion), and biopsy pathology features were prospectively collected on 718 men as part of EDRN (Early Detection Research Network). Utility was determined by generating ROC curves and comparing AUC values for the baseline multivariable PCPT model and for models containing biomarker scores. RESULTS: PCA3 and T2ERG added utility for the prediction of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer when combined with the PCPT Risk Calculator. This utility was seen in nonAfrican American men only for PCA3 (AUC 0.64 increased to 0.75 for prostate cancer and to 0.69-0.77 for clinically significant prostate cancer, both p <0.001) and for T2ERG (AUC 0.64-0.74 for prostate cancer, p <0.001, and 0.69-0.73 for clinically significant prostate cancer, p = 0.029). African American men did not have an added benefit with the addition of biomarkers, including PCA3 (AUC 0.75-0.77, p = 0.64, and 0.65-0.66, p = 0.74) and T2ERG (AUC 0.75-0.74, p = 0.74, and 0.65-0.64, p = 0.88), for prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer, respectively. Limitations include the small number of African American men (72). The post hoc subgroup analysis nature of the study limited findings to being hypothesis generating. CONCLUSIONS: As novel biomarkers are discovered, clinical utility should be established across demographically diverse cohorts.

Relief of Urinary Symptom Burden after Primary Prostate Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: Harms of prostate cancer treatment on urinary health related quality of life have been thoroughly studied. In this study we evaluated not only the harms but also the potential benefits of prostate cancer treatment in relieving the pretreatment urinary symptom burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In American (1,021) and Spanish (539) multicenter prospective cohorts of men with localized prostate cancer we evaluated the effects of radical prostatectomy, external radiotherapy or brachytherapy in relieving pretreatment urinary symptoms and in inducing urinary symptoms de novo, measured by changes in urinary medication use and patient reported urinary bother. RESULTS: Urinary symptom burden improved in 23% and worsened in 28% of subjects after prostate cancer treatment in the American cohort. Urinary medication use rates before treatment and 2 years after treatment were 15% and 6% with radical prostatectomy, 22% and 26% with external radiotherapy, and 19% and 46% with brachytherapy, respectively. Pretreatment urinary medication use (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-2.0, p = 0.04) and pretreatment moderate lower urinary tract symptoms (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.2-3.6) predicted prostate cancer treatment associated relief of baseline urinary symptom burden. Subjects with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms who underwent radical prostatectomy experienced the greatest relief of pretreatment symptoms (OR 4.3, 95% CI 3.0-6.1), despite the development of deleterious de novo urinary incontinence in some men. The magnitude of pretreatment urinary symptom burden and beneficial effect of cancer treatment on those symptoms were verified in the Spanish cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Men with pretreatment lower urinary tract symptoms may experience benefit rather than harm in overall urinary outcome from primary prostate cancer treatment. Practitioners should consider the full spectrum of urinary symptom burden evident before prostate cancer treatment in treatment decisions.

Prostate Health Index improves multivariable risk prediction of aggressive prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) as a continuous variable in multivariable risk assessment for aggressive prostate cancer in a large multicentre US study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population included 728 men, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 2-10 ng/mL and a negative digital rectal examination, enrolled in a prospective, multi-site early detection trial. The primary endpoint was aggressive prostate cancer, defined as biopsy Gleason score ≥7. First, we evaluated whether the addition of PHI improves the performance of currently available risk calculators (the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial [PCPT] and European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer [ERSPC] risk calculators). We also designed and internally validated a new PHI-based multivariable predictive model, and created a nomogram. RESULTS: Of 728 men undergoing biopsy, 118 (16.2%) had aggressive prostate cancer. The PHI predicted the risk of aggressive prostate cancer across the spectrum of values. Adding PHI significantly improved the predictive accuracy of the PCPT and ERSPC risk calculators for aggressive disease. A new model was created using age, previous biopsy, prostate volume, PSA and PHI, with an area under the curve of 0.746. The bootstrap-corrected model showed good calibration with observed risk for aggressive prostate cancer and had net benefit on decision-curve analysis. CONCLUSION: Using PHI as part of multivariable risk assessment leads to a significant improvement in the detection of aggressive prostate cancer, potentially reducing harms from unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis.

Treatment Availability Influences Physicians' Portrayal of Robotic Surgery During Clinical Appointments.

In order to empower patients as decision makers, physicians must educate them about their treatment options in a factual, nonbiased manner. We propose that site-specific availability of treatment options may be a novel source of bias, whereby physicians describe treatments more positively when they are available. We performed a content analysis of physicians' descriptions of robotic prostatectomy within 252 appointments at four Veterans Affairs medical centers where robotic surgery was either available or unavailable. We coded how physicians portrayed robotic versus open prostatectomy across specific clinical categories and in the appointment overall. We found that physicians were more likely to describe robotic prostatectomy as superior when it was available [F(1, 42) = 8.65, p = .005]. We also provide initial qualitative evidence that physicians may be shaping their descriptions of robotic prostatectomy in an effort to manage patients' emotions and demand for the robotic technology. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide empirical evidence that treatment availability influences how physicians describe the advantages and disadvantages of treatment alternatives to patients during clinical encounters, which has important practical implications for patient empowerment and patient satisfaction.

Prognostic Value of Percent Gleason Grade 4 at Prostate Biopsy in Predicting Prostatectomy Pathology and Recurrence.

PURPOSE: The importance of primary Gleason grade among men with Gleason score 7 disease has been well-defined. However, this dichotomization may oversimplify the continuous spectrum of absolute percent Gleason grade 4 disease (G4%). In this study we report the prognostic value of G4% in cancer related outcomes of men undergoing radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for clinically localized Gleason 6-8 prostate cancer from 2005 to 2013 were included in the study. G4% was determined as biopsy tumor length containing Gleason pattern 4/total tumor length, which performed better than alternative quantifications of pattern 4 involvement. G4% was correlated with time to biochemical recurrence and presence of adverse radical prostatectomy pathology, defined as primary Gleason 4 or pT3 or greater, by multivariable Cox and logistic regressions. RESULTS: Of 1,691 patients 517 (30.6%) had adverse pathological features and 86 (5.6%) experienced biochemical recurrence. On multivariable analyses G4% was a significant predictor of adverse pathology (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.05) and time to biochemical recurrence (HR 1.02, CI 1.01-1.03). G4% was also a significant independent predictor of adverse pathology in subsets of patients with Gleason score 7 (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.06), 3+4 (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08) and 4+3 cancer (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.06). We found a significantly increased risk of adverse pathology at potentially meaningful G4% thresholds (1% to 10% vs 20% to 30%). CONCLUSIONS: The incremental percentage of Gleason grade 4 disease in biopsy specimens is an important predictor of adverse pathology and biochemical recurrence across the entire range of G4% disease. Accounting for G4% can improve risk assessment even among those patients with Gleason 3+4 or 4+3 cancer and may help inform patient counseling.

Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in the Prospective, Multi-Institutional Canary PASS Cohort.

PURPOSE: Active surveillance represents a strategy to address the overtreatment of prostate cancer, yet uncertainty regarding individual patient outcomes remains a concern. We evaluated outcomes in a prospective multicenter study of active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 905 men in the prospective Canary PASS enrolled between 2008 and 2013. We collected clinical data at study entry and at prespecified intervals, and determined associations with adverse reclassification, defined as increased Gleason grade or greater cancer volume on followup biopsy. We also evaluated the relationships of clinical parameters with pathology findings in participants who underwent surgery after a period of active surveillance. RESULTS: At a median followup of 28 months 24% of participants experienced adverse reclassification, of whom 53% underwent treatment while 31% continued on active surveillance. Overall 19% of participants received treatment, 68% with adverse reclassification, while 32% opted for treatment without disease reclassification. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling the percent of biopsy cores with cancer, body mass index and prostate specific antigen density were associated with adverse reclassification (p=0.01, 0.04, 0.04, respectively). Of 103 participants subsequently treated with radical prostatectomy 34% had adverse pathology, defined as primary pattern 4-5 or nonorgan confined disease, including 2 with positive lymph nodes, with no significant relationship between risk category at diagnosis and findings at surgery (p=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Most men remain on active surveillance at 5 years without adverse reclassification or adverse pathology at surgery. However, clinical factors had only a modest association with disease reclassification, supporting the need for approaches that improve the prediction of this outcome.