Search

Background and Objective: Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI), excluding dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is a potential replacement for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). An extensive international multireader multicase observer study was conducted to assess the noninferiority of bpMRI to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis., Methods: An observer study was conducted with 400 mpMRI examinations from four European centers, excluding examinations with prior prostate treatment or csPCa (Gleason grade [GG] ≥2) findings. Readers assessed bpMRI and mpMRI sequentially, assigning lesion-specific Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores (3-5) and a patient-level suspicion score (0-100). The noninferiority of patient-level bpMRI versus mpMRI csPCa diagnosis was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) alongside the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3 with a 5% margin. The secondary outcomes included insignificant prostate cancer (GG1) diagnosis, diagnostic evaluations at alternative risk thresholds, decision curve analyses (DCAs), and subgroup analyses considering reader expertise. Histopathology and ≥3 yr of follow-up were used for the reference standard., Key Findings and Limitations: Sixty-two readers (45 centers and 20 countries) participated. The prevalence of csPCa was 33% (133/400); bpMRI and mpMRI showed similar AUROC values of 0.853 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.819-0.887) and 0.859 (95% CI, 0.826-0.893), respectively, with a noninferior difference of -0.6% (95% CI, -1.2% to 0.1%, p < 0.001). At PI-RADS ≥3, bpMRI and mpMRI had sensitivities of 88.6% (95% CI, 84.8-92.3%) and 89.4% (95% CI, 85.8-93.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of -0.9% (95% CI, -1.7% to 0.0%, p < 0.001), and specificities of 58.6% (95% CI, 52.3-63.1%) and 57.7% (95% CI, 52.3-63.1%), respectively, with a noninferior difference of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.0-1.8%, p < 0.001). At alternative risk thresholds, mpMRI increased sensitivity at the expense of reduced specificity. DCA demonstrated the highest net benefit for an mpMRI pathway in cancer-averse scenarios, whereas a bpMRI pathway showed greater benefit for biopsy-averse scenarios. A subgroup analysis indicated limited additional benefit of DCE MRI for nonexperts. Limitations included that biopsies were conducted based on mpMRI imaging, and reading was performed in a sequential order., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: It has been found that bpMRI is noninferior to mpMRI in csPCa diagnosis at AUROC, along with the sensitivity and specificity at PI-RADS ≥3, showing its value in individuals without prior csPCa findings and prostate treatment. Additional randomized prospective studies are required to investigate the generalizability of outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa., Methods: The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence., Key Findings and Limitations: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management., Patient Summary: This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) have been updated. Here we provide a summary of the 2024 guidelines., Methods: The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence., Key Findings and Limitations: Risk stratification for relapsing PCa after primary therapy may guide salvage therapy decisions. New treatment options, such as androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs), ARTA + chemotherapy combinations, PARP inhibitors and their combinations, and prostate-specific membrane antigen-based therapy have become available for men with metastatic PCa., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Evidence for relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant PCa is evolving rapidly. These guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. The full version is available online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/ prostate-cancer/)., Patient Summary: This article summarises the 2024 guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are based on evidence and guide doctors in discussing treatment decisions with their patients. The guidelines are updated every year., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background and Objective: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can detect recurrences after focal therapy for prostate cancer but there is no robust guidance regarding its use. Our objective was to produce consensus recommendations on MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy., Methods: A systematic review was performed in July 2022 to develop consensus statements. A two-round consensus exercise was then performed, with a consensus meeting in January 2023, during which 329 statements were scored by 23 panellists from Europe and North America spanning urology, radiology, and pathology with experience across eight focal therapy modalities. Using RAND Corporation/University of California-Los Angeles methodology, the Transatlantic Recommendations for Prostate Gland Evaluation with MRI after Focal Therapy (TARGET) were based on consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement., Key Findings and Limitations: In total, 73 studies were included in the review. All 20 studies (100%) reporting suspicious imaging features cited focal contrast enhancement as suspicious for cancer recurrence. Of 31 studies reporting MRI assessment criteria, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was the scheme used most often (20 studies; 65%), followed by a 5-point Likert score (six studies; 19%). For the consensus exercise, consensus for statements scored with agreement or disagreement increased from 227 of 295 statements (76.9%) in round one to 270 of 329 statements (82.1%) in round two. Key recommendations include performing routine MRI at 12 mo using a multiparametric protocol compliant with PI-RADS version 2.1 standards. PI-RADS category scores for assessing recurrence within the ablation zone should be avoided. An alternative 5-point scoring system is presented that includes a major dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) sequence and joint minor diffusion-weighted imaging and T2-weighted sequences. For the DCE sequence, focal nodular strong early enhancement was the most suspicious imaging finding. A structured minimum reporting data set and minimum reporting standards for studies detailing MRI data after focal therapy are presented., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The TARGET consensus recommendations may improve MRI acquisition, interpretation, and reporting after focal therapy for prostate cancer and provide minimum standards for study reporting., Patient Summary: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans can detect recurrent of prostate cancer after focal treatments, but there is a lack of guidance on MRI use for this purpose. We report new expert recommendations that may improve practice., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: The optimal management for men with prostate cancer (PCa) with unconventional histology (UH) is unknown. The outcome for these cancers might be worse than for conventional PCa and so different approaches may be needed., Objective: To compare oncological outcomes for conventional and UH PCa in men with localized disease treated with curative intent., Evidence Acquisition: A systematic review adhering to the Referred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022296013) was performed in July 2021., Evidence Synthesis: We screened 3651 manuscripts and identified 46 eligible studies (reporting on 1 871 814 men with conventional PCa and 6929 men with 10 different PCa UHs). Extraprostatic extension and lymph node metastases, but not positive margin rates, were more common with UH PCa than with conventional tumors. PCa cases with cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, or ductal adenocarcinoma had higher rates of biochemical recurrence and metastases after radical prostatectomy than for conventional PCa cases. Lower cancer-specific survival rates were observed for mixed cribriform/intraductal and cribriform PCa. By contrast, pathological findings and oncological outcomes for mucinous and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN)-like PCa were similar to those for conventional PCa. Limitations of this review include low-quality studies, a risk of reporting bias, and a scarcity of studies that included radiotherapy., Conclusions: Intraductal, cribriform, and ductal UHs may have worse oncological outcomes than for conventional and mucinous or PIN-like PCa. Alternative treatment approaches need to be evaluated in men with these cancers., Patient Summary: We reviewed the literature to explore whether prostate cancers with unconventional growth patterns behave differently to conventional prostate cancers. We found that some unconventional growth patterns have worse outcomes, so we need to investigate if they need different treatments. Urologists should be aware of these growth patterns and their clinical impact., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa)., Objective: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy., Evidence Acquisition: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed., Evidence Synthesis: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy., Conclusions: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified., Patient Summary: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter)., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa)., Evidence Acquisition: The panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence., Evidence Synthesis: A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment., Conclusions: The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management., Patient Summary: Updated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)., Evidence Acquisition: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2016-2019). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature., Evidence Synthesis: Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography scanning has developed an increasingly important role in men with biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy appears as effective as adjuvant radiotherapy and, in a subset of patients, should be combined with androgen deprivation. New treatments have become available for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa), nonmetastatic CRPC, and metastatic CRPC, along with a role for local radiotherapy in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. Also included is information on quality of life outcomes in men with PCa., Conclusions: The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/)., Patient Summary: This article summarises the guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are evidence based and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken. These guidelines are updated every year; this summary spans the 2017-2020 period of new evidence., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Context: The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown., Objective: To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported., Evidence Acquisition: Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists [ISUP] grade 4-5 [Gleason score {GS} 8-10] or prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3-4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed., Evidence Synthesis: Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems., Conclusions: Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment., Patient Summary: We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy., (Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial., Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management., Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference., Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference., Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus)., Results and Limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease., Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach., Patient Summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available., (Copyright © 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised., Objective: To develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT., Design, Setting, and Participants: A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains; (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients; and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed., Results and Limitations: A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%); the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion., Conclusions: Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials., Patient Summary: We undertook a project aimed at standardising the elements of practice in active surveillance programmes for early localised prostate cancer because currently there is great variation and uncertainty regarding how best to conduct them. The project involved large numbers of healthcare practitioners and patients using a survey and face-to-face meeting, in order to achieve agreement (ie, consensus) regarding best practice, which will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Context: In men with prostate cancer (PCa) treated with curative intent, controversy exists regarding the impact of biochemical recurrence (BCR) on oncological outcomes., Objective: To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on BCR after treatment with curative intent for nonmetastatic PCa. Objective 1 is to investigate whether oncological outcomes differ between patients with or without BCR. Objective 2 is to study which clinical factors and tumor features in patients with BCR have an independent prognostic impact on oncological outcomes., Evidence Acquisition: Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. For objective 1, prospective and retrospective studies comparing survival outcomes of patients with or without BCR following radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiotherapy (RT) were included. For objective 2, all studies with at least 100 participants and reporting on prognostic patient and tumor characteristics in patients with BCR were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Both a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis were undertaken., Evidence Synthesis: Overall, 77 studies were included for analysis, of which 14 addressed objective 1, recruiting 20 406 patients. Objective 2 was addressed by 71 studies with 29 057, 11 301, and 4272 patients undergoing RP, RT, and a mixed population (mix of patients undergoing RP or RT as primary treatment), respectively. There was a low risk of bias for study participation, confounders, and statistical analysis. For most studies, attrition bias, and prognostic and outcome measurements were not clearly reported. BCR was associated with worse survival rates, mainly in patients with short prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSA-DT) and a high final Gleason score after RP, or a short interval to biochemical failure (IBF) after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score., Conclusions: BCR has an impact on survival, but this effect appears to be limited to a subgroup of patients with specific clinical risk factors. Short PSA-DT and a high final Gleason score after RP, and a short IBF after RT and a high biopsy Gleason score are the main factors that have a negative impact on survival. These factors may form the basis of new BCR risk stratification (European Association of Urology BCR Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally., Patient Summary: This review looks at the risk of death in men who shows rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the blood test performed after curative surgery or radiotherapy. For many men, rising PSA does not mean that they are at a high risk of death from prostate cancer in the longer term. Men with PSA that rises shortly after they were treated with radiotherapy or rapidly rising PSA after surgery and a high tumor grade for both treatment modalities are at the highest risk of death. These factors may form the basis of new risk stratification (European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence Risk Groups), which needs to be validated formally., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Radical treatment of localised prostate cancer is recognised to be an unnecessary intervention or overtreatment in many men. Consequently, there has been a rapid uptake in the use of focal ablative therapies. However, there are several biological and practical concerns about such approaches as they have yet to be proved as robust treatment options. In particular, the multifocal nature of prostate cancer argues against unifocal treatment, while limitations in imaging can preclude the accurate identification of the number, location, and extent of prostate cancer foci. To date, a number of ablative options have reported results on mainly low-risk disease. Most series are relatively immature, with a lack of consistent follow-up, and the morbidity of retreatment is often not considered. The authors consider focal therapy to be an investigational modality, and encourage prospective recording of outcomes and recruitment of suitable patients., Patient Summary: Focal therapy of prostate cancer is the targeted destruction of cancer within a specific part of the prostate gland, sparing the rest of the prostate and nearby tissue. This procedure could potentially reduce side effects when compared with established standard treatments, such as surgery or radiotherapy, which treat the entire prostate. Studies show that for most men with low-risk cancer, active surveillance is the preferred treatment option. However, the available data regarding all forms of focal therapy are still poor and inconclusive. Consequently, due to both the lack of clear results associated with focal therapy and the difficulties in detecting all cancerous areas of the prostate, focal therapy should be considered an investigational modality only., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Current evidence-based management for clinically localised prostate cancer includes active surveillance, surgery, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy. The impact of these treatment modalities on quality of life (QoL) is uncertain., Objective: To systematically review comparative studies investigating disease-specific QoL outcomes as assessed by validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures with at least 1 yr of follow-up after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer., Evidence Acquisition: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. Studies were critically appraised for the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was undertaken., Evidence Synthesis: Of 11486 articles identified, 18 studies were eligible for inclusion, including three randomised controlled trials (RCTs; follow-up range: 60-72 mo) and 15 nonrandomised comparative studies (follow-up range: 12-180 mo) recruiting a total of 13604 patients. Two RCTs recruited small cohorts and only one was judged to have a low risk of bias. The quality of evidence from observational studies was low to moderate. For a follow-up of up to 6 yr, active surveillance was found to have the lowest impact on cancer-specific QoL, surgery had a negative impact on urinary and sexual function when compared with active surveillance and EBRT, and EBRT had a negative impact on bowel function when compared with active surveillance and surgery. Data from one small RCT reported that brachytherapy has a negative impact on urinary function 1 yr post-treatment, but no significant urinary toxicity was reported at 5 yr., Conclusions: This is the first systematic review comparing the impact of different primary treatments on cancer-specific QoL for men with clinically localised prostate cancer, using validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures only. There is robust evidence that choice of primary treatment for localised prostate cancer has distinct impacts on patients' QoL. This should be discussed in detail with patients during pretreatment counselling., Patient Summary: Our review of the current evidence suggests that for a period of up to 6 yr after treatment, men with localised prostate cancer who were managed with active surveillance reported high levels of quality of life (QoL). Men treated with surgery reported mainly urinary and sexual problems, while those treated with external beam radiotherapy reported mainly bowel problems. Men eligible for brachytherapy reported urinary problems up to a year after therapy, but then their QoL returned gradually to as it was before treatment., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: It remains unclear whether patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can safely obviate prostate biopsy., Objective: To systematically review the literature assessing the negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in patients with a suspicion of PCa., Evidence Acquisition: The Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched up to February 2016. Studies reporting prebiopsy mpMRI results using transrectal or transperineal biopsy as a reference standard were included. We further selected for meta-analysis studies with at least 10-core biopsies as the reference standard, mpMRI comprising at least T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging, positive mpMRI defined as a Prostate Imaging Reporting Data System/Likert score of ≥3/5 or ≥4/5, and results reported at patient level for the detection of overall PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer., Evidence Synthesis: A total of 48 studies (9613 patients) were eligible for inclusion. At patient level, the median prevalence was 50.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 36.4-57.7%) for overall cancer and 32.9% (IQR, 28.1-37.2%) for csPCa. The median mpMRI NPV was 82.4% (IQR, 69.0-92.4%) for overall cancer and 88.1% (IQR, 85.7-92.3) for csPCa. NPV significantly decreased when cancer prevalence increased, for overall cancer (r=-0.64, p<0.0001) and csPCa (r=-0.75, p=0.032). Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Seven reported results for overall PCa. When the overall PCa prevalence increased from 30% to 60%, the combined NPV estimates decreased from 88% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 77-99%) to 67% (95% CI, 56-79%) for a cut-off score of 3/5. Only one study selected for meta-analysis reported results for Gleason ≥7 cancers, with a positive biopsy rate of 29.3%. The corresponding NPV for a cut-off score of ≥3/5 was 87.9%., Conclusions: The NPV of mpMRI varied greatly depending on study design, cancer prevalence, and definitions of positive mpMRI and csPCa. As cancer prevalence was highly variable among series, risk stratification of patients should be the initial step before considering prebiopsy mpMRI and defining those in whom biopsy may be omitted when the mpMRI is negative., Patient Summary: This systematic review examined if multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan can be used to reliably predict the absence of prostate cancer in patients suspected of having prostate cancer, thereby avoiding a prostate biopsy. The results suggest that whilst it is a promising tool, it is not accurate enough to replace prostate biopsy in such patients, mainly because its accuracy is variable and influenced by the prostate cancer risk. However, its performance can be enhanced if there were more accurate ways of determining the risk of having prostate cancer. When such tools are available, it should be possible to use an MRI scan to avoid biopsy in patients at a low risk of prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa)., Objective: To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the relative benefits and harms of PLND for oncological and non-oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for PCa., Evidence Acquisition: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2015. Comparative studies evaluating no PLND, limited, standard, and (super)-extended PLND that reported oncological and non-oncological outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken., Evidence Synthesis: Overall, 66 studies recruiting a total of 275,269 patients were included (44 full-text articles and 22 conference abstracts). Oncological outcomes were addressed by 29 studies, one of which was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Non-oncological outcomes were addressed by 43 studies, three of which were RCTs. There were high risks of bias and confounding in most studies. Conflicting results emerged when comparing biochemical and clinical recurrence, while no significant differences were observed among groups for survival. Conversely, the majority of studies showed that the more extensive the PLND, the greater the adverse outcomes in terms of operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. No significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery., Conclusions: Although representing the most accurate staging procedure, PLND and its extension are associated with worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes, whereas a direct therapeutic effect is still not evident from the current literature. The current poor quality of evidence indicates the need for robust and adequately powered clinical trials., Patient Summary: Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this article summarizes the benefits and harms of removing lymph nodes during surgery to remove the prostate because of PCa. Although the quality of the data from the studies was poor, the review suggests that lymph node removal may not have any direct benefit on cancer outcomes and may instead result in more complications. Nevertheless, the procedure remains justified because it enables accurate assessment of cancer spread., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa)., Evidence Acquisition: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013-2015). The guidelines were updated and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the evidence., Evidence Synthesis: BRCA2 mutations have been added as risk factors for early and aggressive disease. In addition to the Gleason score, the five-tier 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology grading system should now be provided. Systematic screening is still not recommended. Instead, an individual risk-adapted strategy following a detailed discussion and taking into account the patient's wishes and life expectancy must be considered. An early prostate-specific antigen test, the use of a risk calculator, or one of the promising biomarker tools are being investigated and might be able to limit the overdetection of insignificant PCa. Breaking the link between diagnosis and treatment may lower the overtreatment risk. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using standardised reporting cannot replace systematic biopsy, but robustly nested within the diagnostic work-up, it has a key role in local staging. Active surveillance always needs to be discussed with very low-risk patients. The place of surgery in high-risk disease and the role of lymph node dissection have been clarified, as well as the management of node-positive patients. Radiation therapy using dose-escalated intensity-modulated technology is a key treatment modality with recent improvement in the outcome based on increased doses as well as combination with hormonal treatment. Moderate hypofractionation is safe and effective, but longer-term data are still lacking. Brachytherapy represents an effective way to increase the delivered dose. Focal therapy remains experimental while cryosurgery and HIFU are still lacking long-term convincing results., Conclusions: The knowledge in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2016 EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for the use in clinical practice. These are the first PCa guidelines endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office and online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/)., Patient Summary: The 2016 EAU-STRO-IOG Prostate Cancer (PCa) Guidelines present updated information on the diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. In Northern and Western Europe, the number of men diagnosed with PCa has been on the rise. This may be due to an increase in opportunistic screening, but other factors may also be involved (eg, diet, sexual behaviour, low exposure to ultraviolet radiation). We propose that men who are potential candidates for screening should be engaged in a discussion with their clinician (also involving their families and caregivers) so that an informed decision may be made as part of an individualised risk-adapted approach., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To present a summary of the 2016 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU) - European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) - International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)., Evidence Acquisition: The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2013-2015). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature., Evidence Synthesis: Relapse after local therapy is defined by a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level >0.2ng/ml following radical prostatectomy (RP) and >2ng/ml above the nadir after radiation therapy (RT). 11 C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography is of limited importance if PSA is <1.0ng/ml; bone scans and computed tomography can be omitted unless PSA is >10ng/ml. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy are important to assess biochemical failure following RT. Therapy for PSA relapse after RP includes salvage RT at PSA levels <0.5ng/ml and salvage RP, high-intensity focused ultrasound, cryosurgical ablation or salvage brachytherapy of the prostate in radiation failures. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the basis for treatment of men with metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). However, docetaxel combined with ADT should be considered the standard of care for men with metastases at first presentation, provided they are fit enough to receive the drug. Follow-up of ADT should include analysis of PSA, testosterone levels, and screening for cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Level 1 evidence for the treatment of metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) includes, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA/P), enzalutamide, radium 223 (Ra 223), docetaxel at 75 mg/m 2 every 3 wk and sipuleucel-T. Cabazitaxel, AA/P, enzalutamide, and radium are approved for second-line treatment of CRPC following docetaxel. Zoledronic acid and denosumab can be used in men with mCRPC and osseous metastases to prevent skeletal-related complications., Conclusions: The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2016 EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are the first endorsed by the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and the International Society of Geriatric Oncology and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/)., Patient Summary: In men with a rise in their PSA levels after prior local treatment for prostate cancer only, it is important to balance overtreatment against further progression of the disease since survival and quality of life may never be affected in many of these patients. For patients diagnosed with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, several new drugs have become available which may provide a clear survival benefit but the optimal choice will have to be made on an individual basis., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Up to a third of patients with localized prostate cancer have unilateral disease that may be suitable for partial treatment with hemiablation., Objective: To evaluate the ability of high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) to achieve local control of the tumor in patients with unilateral localized prostate cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: The French Urological Association initiated a prospective IDEAL multi-institutional study (2009-2015), to evaluate HIFU-hemiablation as a primary treatment., Intervention: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy were used for unilateral cancer diagnosis and control, and HIFU-hemiablation., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Primary: absence of clinically significant cancer (CSC) on control biopsy at 1 yr (CSC: Gleason score ≥ 7 or cancer core length>3mm regardless of grade or > 2 positive cores). Secondary: presence of any cancer on biopsy, biochemical response, radical treatment free survival, adverse events, continence (no pad), erectile function (International Index of Erectile Function-5 ≥ 16), and quality of life (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C28) questionnaires., Results and Limitations: One hundred and eleven patients were treated (mean age: 64.8 yr [standard deviation 6.2]; mean prostate-specific antigen: 6.2 ng/ml [standard deviation 2.6]; 68% low risk, 32% intermediate risk). Of the 101 patients with control biopsy, 96 (95%) and 94 (93%) had no CSC in the treated and contralateral lobes, respectively. Mean prostate-specific antigen at 2 yr was 2.3 ng/ml (standard deviation 1.7). The radical treatment-free survival rate at 2 years was 89% (radical treatments: six radical prostatectomies, three radiotherapies, and two HIFU). Adverse events were Grade 3 in 13%. At 12 mo continence and erectile functions were preserved in 97% and 78%. No significant decrease in quality of life score was observed at 12 mo. One limitation is the number of low-risk patients included in this study., Conclusions: At 1 yr, HIFU-hemiablation was efficient with 95% absence of clinically significant cancer associated with low morbidity and preservation of quality of life. Radical treatment-free survival rate was 89% at 2 yr., Patient Summary: This report shows that high intensity focused ultrasound half-gland treatment of unilateral prostate cancer provides promising results with high cancer control and low morbidity., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: The relative benefits and harms of hormonal treatment (HT) versus no or deferred HT in patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) relapse after primary curative therapy are controversial., Objective: To assess the effectiveness of HT for nonmetastatic PCa relapse, prognostic factors for treatment outcome, timing of treatment, and the most effective treatment strategy to provide guidance for clinical practice., Evidence Acquisition: A systematic literature search was undertaken incorporating Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (search ended March 2015). Studies were critically appraised for risk of bias. The outcomes included overall and cancer-specific survival, metastasis-free survival, symptom-free survival, progression to castrate resistance, adverse events, and quality of life., Evidence Synthesis: Of 9687 articles identified, 27 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 RCTs, 8 nonrandomised comparative studies, and 17 case series). The results suggest that only a subgroup of patients, especially those with high-risk disease, may benefit from early HT. The main predictors for unfavourable outcomes were shorter PSA doubling time (<6-12 mo) and higher Gleason score (>7). Early HT may be warranted for patients with high-risk disease. An intermittent HT strategy appears feasible. Most studies had a moderate to high risks of bias., Conclusions: HT for PCa relapse after primary therapy with curative intent should be reserved for patients at highest risk of progression and with a long life expectancy. The potential benefits of starting HT should be judiciously balanced against the associated harms., Patient Summary: This article summarises the evidence on the benefits and harms of hormonal treatment in prostate cancer (PCa) patients in whom the disease has recurred following earlier curative treatment. We found that only a select group of patients with aggressive PCa and a fast rising prostate-specific antigen may benefit from early hormonal treatment (HT), whereas in others HT may be more harmful than beneficial., (Copyright © 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Focal therapy has been introduced for the treatment of localised prostate cancer (PCa). To provide the necessary data for consistent assessment, all focal therapy trials should be performed according to uniform, systematic pre- and post-treatment evaluation with well-defined end points and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria., Objective: To obtain consensus on trial design for focal therapy in PCa., Design, Setting, and Participants: A four-staged consensus project based on a modified Delphi process was conducted in which 48 experts in focal therapy of PCa participated. According to this formal consensus-building method, participants were asked to fill out an iterative sequence of questionnaires to collect data on trial design. Subsequently, a consensus meeting was held in which 13 panellists discussed acquired data, clarified the results, and defined the conclusions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: A multidisciplinary board from oncologic centres worldwide reached consensus on patient selection, pretreatment assessment, evaluation of outcome, and follow-up., Results and Limitations: Inclusion criteria for candidates in focal therapy trials are patients with prostate-specific antigen <15 ng/ml, clinical stage T1c-T2a, Gleason score 3+3 or 3+4, life expectancy of >10 yr, and any prostate volume. The optimal biopsy strategy includes transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies to be taken between 6 mo and 12 mo after treatment. The primary objective should be focal ablation of clinically significant disease with negative biopsies at 12 mo after treatment as the primary end point., Conclusions: This consensus report provides a standard for designing a feasible focal therapy trial., Patient Summary: A variety of ablative technologies have been introduced and applied in a focal manner for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). In this consensus report, an international panel of experts in the field of PCa determined pre- and post-treatment work-up for focal therapy research., (Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.)

Background: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a nonsurgical therapy for selected patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa)., Objective: The long-term oncologic and morbidity outcomes of primary HIFU therapy for localized PCa were evaluated in a prospective, single-arm, single-institution cohort study., Design, Setting, and Participants: Participants were patients treated with HIFU for localized PCa from 1997 to 2009. Excluded were patients with local recurrence following radiotherapy. A second HIFU session was systematically performed in patients with biopsy-proven local recurrence., Intervention: Whole-gland prostate ablation with transrectal HIFU., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Incontinence was assessed using the Ingelman-Sundberg score, and potency was assessed using the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scores. Primary outcomes were survival rates (biochemical-free, cancer-specific, metastasis-free, and overall survival). Secondary outcomes were morbidity rates. Median follow-up was 6.4 yr (range: 0.2-13.9). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine survival estimates, and multivariate analysis was used to determine predictive factors of biochemical progression., Results and Limitations: A total of 1002 patients were included. The median nadir prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 0.14 ng/ml, with 63% of patients reaching a nadir PSA ≤0.3 ng/ml. Sixty percent of patients received one HIFU session, 38% received two sessions, and 2% received three sessions. The 8-yr biochemical-free survival rates (Phoenix definition) were 76%, 63%, and 57% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients, respectively (p < 0.001). At 10 yr, the PCa-specific survival rate and metastasis-free survival rate (MFSR) were 97% and 94%, respectively. Salvage therapies included external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) (13.8%), EBRT plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) (9.7%), and ADT alone (12.1%). Severe incontinence and bladder outlet obstruction decreased with refinement in the technology, from 6.4% and 34.9% to 3.1% and 5.9%, respectively. Limitations included the fact that the study was a single-arm study without a comparison group, technological improvements, changes in surgical protocol during the study, and the use of ADT to downsize the prostate in 39% of patients., Conclusions: HIFU is a potentially effective treatment of localized PCa, with a low PCa-specific mortality rate and a high MFSR at 10 yr as well as acceptable morbidity., (Copyright © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is a real-time imaging technique with the capability of visualizing perfusion patterns. Since tumour growth is associated with changes in vascularisation, this modality is under research for imaging of various tumour types. Studies have shown promising results for the diagnosis of prostate cancer for various imaging techniques; however, the exact value of each technique is still unclear., Objective: To determine the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the detection, localisation, and follow-up of treatment for prostate cancer., Evidence Acquisition: In the period 2002-2006, research in four European centres regarding CEUS of the prostate was coordinated in a combined program. This paper describes and combines the results of these studies., Evidence Synthesis: Various techniques were developed and researched during the period of this program. Studies showed that prostate cancer could be visualized and localized in up to 78%. Visualization of the tumour enabled better detection; targeted biopsies lead to fewer biopsies per session without loss of detection rate. A combined approach offered the highest detection rate. CEUS could be used to visualize the effects of high-intensity focussed ultrasound and hormonal therapy for prostate cancer with success, and identified patients with an early relapse. Unfortunately, pretreatment evaluation could not identify the nonresponders beforehand., Conclusions: This research project was a first step towards routine use of CEUS in the clinical detection and follow-up of prostate cancer; and new combined studies are initiated.

Purpose: To evaluate the results of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment of localized prostate cancer with reference to disease-related prognostic factors., Materials and Methods: Patients with T1-2 localized prostate cancers, prostate specific antigen (PSA) 1 ng/ml with three consecutive rises., Results: The study included 227 patients. Mean follow-up was 27+/-20 months (12-121 months). Eighty-six percent had negative control biopsies. Median nadir PSA was 0.10 ng/ml. The actuarial 5-year disease-free survival rate (DFSR), combining pathologic and biochemical outcomes, was 66%. DFSR showed a significant decrease when stratified according to initial PSA level: 90% with PSA

Objective: Transrectal ultrasound cannot accurately depict early cancer recurrences after prostate high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation. We evaluated transrectal color Doppler (CD) in guiding post-HIFU prostate biopsy., Methods: Prostate CD-guided sextant biopsies were obtained in 82 patients who had undergone prostate HIFU ablation for cancer, 24 of whom had hormone therapy before the treatment. At the time of biopsy, a subjective CD score was given to all biopsy sites (0=no flow; 1=minimal flow; 2=suspicious flow pattern). CD findings were compared with biopsy results., Results: CD was a significant predictor of biopsy findings, according to univariate and multivariate site-by-site analysis. However, only 36 of 94 sites with residual cancer had positive CD findings, and thus, negative CD findings should not preclude random biopsy. There was a significant interaction between CD diagnostic capability and a history of hormone therapy before HIFU treatment. CD was a significant and independent predictor of biopsy findings in patients who had not received hormone therapy (odds ratio: 4.4; 95%CI: 2.5-7.9; p<0.0001), but not in those who had (odds ratio: 1.3; 95%CI: 0.5-3.4; p>0.5)., Conclusion: Biopsy taken in CD-positive sites were 4.4 times more likely to contain cancer in patients who did not receive hormone therapy. CD could not reliably depict cancer recurrence in patients with history of hormone therapy.

Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of gadolinium-enhanced MRI in gauging the extent of the tissue damage induced by transrectal high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy and to assess how well the results obtained with this modality correlate with histological findings (control biopsies)., Methods: Twenty-one patients with biopsy-proven prostate cancer (T1-T2-T3a, Nx, M0) who gave informed consent were included in the protocol. They underwent pre- and postoperative (2-5 days after HIFU treatment) MR examinations. Fifteen patients also underwent a follow-up MR examination 1-5 months postoperatively. MR findings were compared with the results of postoperative transrectal biopsy examinations., Results: The prostate volume increased after the HIFU session from 43.9+/-18.6 to 52.1+/-21 cm(3) by day 2 (p<0.001). On fat-saturated gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted images, the treated area appeared as a hypointense zone surrounded by a peripheral rim of enhancement in all patients. A positive correlation (r = 0.75) was found between the volume of the hypointense zone measured at days 2-5 (30+/-11 cm(3), 67% of the posttreatment prostate volume) and the theoretical target volume (22+/-5 cm(3), 61% of the initial prostate volume). MRI showed that the anterior part of the base was not reached by the ultrasound beam. The mean volume of the untreated zone (prostate without any MRI modifications) was 8 cm(3) (range, 0.4-36). No correlation was found between the MRI appearance of the treated area and the intensity of the necrosis or the presence of foci of residual, viable cancer., Conclusion: Gadolinium-enhanced MRI is an accurate way of determining the extent of tissue damage induced in HIFU ablative therapy, but cannot predict histological results.