Precision-guidance vs Systematic Sampling: Optimizing Biopsy Assessment of Secondary Prostate Cancer Suspicious Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions.

PURPOSE: We assessed the diagnostic yield of consecutive transperineal targeted biopsy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging index lesion and secondary lesion and additive systematic biopsy in patients who received combined targeted biopsy+systematic biopsy of prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 1,467 patients with targeted biopsy+systematic biopsy, analyses were restricted to 571 patients with index lesion+secondary lesion, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score ≥3. Index lesion was defined as having the greatest Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score and/or lesion volume as opposed to secondary lesion. We retrospectively compared clinically significant prostate cancer rates (ie, Gleason Grade Group ≥2) between index lesion+secondary lesion and index lesion+secondary lesion+systematic biopsy. Subgroup analyses in men with ipsilateral index lesion+secondary lesion focused on contralateral systematic biopsy. Multivariable logistic regression analyses to predict any clinically significant prostate cancer included age, previous biopsies, prostate specific antigen density, respective index lesion/secondary lesion volumes, side relation, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System strata, and number of targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy cores. RESULTS: Clinically significant prostate cancer rates for index lesion+secondary lesion vs index lesion+secondary lesion+systematic biopsy were 38% vs 42% (P = .2) at expense of significantly higher median number of biopsy cores (9 vs 25, P < .001). In the subgroup with ipsilateral index lesion+secondary lesion (n = 236), contralateral systematic biopsy detected clinically significant prostate cancer in 17%. In the narrower subgroup with ipsilateral index lesion+secondary lesion (n = 131) without any clinically significant prostate cancer, contralateral systematic biopsy detected clinically significant prostate cancer in 3.8%. Multivariable logistic regression analyses confirmed contralateral systematic biopsy as independent predictor, but performed similarly without systematic biopsy information (area under the curve 87.1% vs 86.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted biopsy of secondary lesion should be included in targeted biopsy protocols due to added diagnostic information. However, for targeted biopsy of index lesion+secondary lesion additional systematic biopsy is of limited informative value in terms of overall clinically significant prostate cancer detection. However, when index lesion+secondary lesion are ipsilateral, contralateral systematic biopsy should be recommended for purpose of prostate lobe information. Our results indicate great potential to reduce systematic biopsy cores and associated potential morbidity, and warrant prospective evaluation.

Suitability of conventional systematic vs. MRI-guided targeted biopsy approaches to assess surgical treatment delay for radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess if systematic (SBx) vs. transrectal or transperineal mpMRI-ultrasound targeted combined with systematic (TBx + SBx) biopsy confer different effects on treatment delay to radical prostatectomy measured as Gleason grade group (GGG) upgrade of prostate cancer (PCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We relied on a multi-institutional cohort of localized PCa patients who underwent RP in Martini-Klinik, Hamburg, or Prostate Center Northwest, Gronau, between 2014 and 2022. Analyses were restricted to PCa GGG 1-3 diagnosed at SBx (n = 4475) or TBx + SBx (n = 1282). Multivariable logistic regression modeling (MVA) predicting RP GGG upgrade of ≥ 1 was performed separately for SBx and TBx + SBx. RESULTS: Treatment delay to RP of < 90, 90-180 and 180-365 days was reported in 59%, 35% and 6.2% of SBx and in 60%, 34% and 5.9% of the TBx + SBx patients, respectively. Upgrade to GGG ≥ 4 at RP was detected in 15% of SBx patients and 0.86% of TBx patients. In MVA performed for SBx, treatment delay yielded independent predictor status (OR 1.17 95% CI 1.02-1.39, p = 0.028), whereas for TBx + SBx MVA, statistical significance was not achieved. CONCLUSION: Treatment delay remained independently associated with radical prostatectomy GGG upgrade after adjustment for clinical variables in the patients diagnosed with SBx alone, but not in those who received combined TBx + SBx. These findings can be explained through inherent misclassification rates of SBx, potentially obfuscating historical observations of natural PCa progression and potential dangers of treatment delay. Thus, mpMRI-guided combined TBx + SBx appears mandatory for prospective delay-based examinations of PCa.

Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Patients with Prior Transurethral Subvesical Deobstruction: Results of a High-Volume Center.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer patients who are scheduled for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy often have a history of transurethral resection or laser enucleation of the prostate as treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. We examined if these patients have impaired surgical, functional and oncologic outcomes compared to those who have no symptom burden of moderate to severe benign prostatic hyperplasia and no previous transurethral resection or laser enucleation of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared 368 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients with previous transurethral resection or laser enucleation of the prostate (group A) to 4,945 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients without transurethral resection or laser enucleation of the prostate and without moderate or severe benign prostatic hyperplasia symptoms (group B) at a high-volume robot-assisted radical prostatectomy center. Multivariable Cox regression analyses assessed impact of transurethral resection or laser enucleation of the prostate on erectile function and urinary continence recovery, biochemical recurrence or metastatic progression. Analyses were repeated after propensity score matching. RESULTS: No relevant differences in surgical outcomes, such as surgical margin and 30-day complications rates, were observed. Urinary continence recovery rates at 12 months were 67% vs 74% (group A vs B; p <0.001). Erectile function recovery rates at 24 months were 52% vs 62% (p <0.001). Biochemical recurrence-free rates at 36 months were identical, at 87.3% vs 87.8%. Before and after propensity score matching, transurethral resection or laser enucleation of the prostate negatively affected erectile function recovery (matched HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.88; p=0.003) in multivariable Cox regression analyses. Similarly, transurethral resection or laser enucleation of the prostate had negative effect on urinary continence recovery (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.97; p=0.015) but no effect on biochemical recurrence or metastatic progression. CONCLUSIONS: Previous transurethral resection or laser enucleation of the prostate does not negatively impact surgical, complication-related, and oncologic outcomes if the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is performed by highly experienced surgeons. However, transurethral resection or laser enucleation of the prostate negatively affects erectile function and urinary continence recovery.