Search

Purpose: To analyze the association between prostatic proliferative inflammatory atrophy finding in negative prostate biopsies and future detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and its aggressiveness in men subjected to repeat biopsies, due to persistent suspicion of PCa., Materials and Methods: Prospective and observational study of 474 men scheduled to repeated PBs. Assessment of PIA and its extension in the previous biopsy. PCa detection rate and tumor aggressiveness. Age, serum total PSA, free PSA, percent free PSA (%fPSA), digital rectal exam (DRE), prostate volume (PV), PSA density (PSAD), PSA kinetics (PSAV and PSADT) findings of PIA and HGPIN, and number of affected cores in previous PBs were included in the univariate and multivariate analysis. Aggressive tumors were considered when any Gleason pattern 4 was found., Results: PCa was detected in 133 men (28.1%). Age, serum total PSA, %fPSA, PV, PSAD, PSAV, PSADT, and PIA finding were significantly associated to PCa detection. However, only age, OR: 1.06 (95%CI: 1.03-1.10), P < 0.01; DRE, OR: 1.76 (95%CI: 1.05-2.92), P = 0.03; %fPSA, OR: 0.96 (95%CI: 0.93-0.99), P = 0.03; PV, OR: 0.98 (95%CI: 0.97-0.99) and PIA finding, OR: 0.49 (95%CI: 0.29-0.83), P < 0.01, were independent predictors of PCa detection. PCa was found in 18% of 159 men with previous PIA finding while in 33% of 315 men without previous PIA (P < 0.01). None of the studied parameters including PIA in the previous biopsy were related with subsequent PCa aggressiveness., Conclusions: PIA finding in negative biopsies correlates with a decreased frequency of detecting PCa in men with persistent suspicion of PCa. The aggressiveness of future detected tumors was not associated with previous PIA finding. Prostate 76:1501-1506, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Concerns exist regarding the effects of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) on multipa-rametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection. Our objective is to analyze the effect of 5-ARI on the prostate imaging–reporting and data system (PI-RADS) distribution and csPCa and insignificant PCa (iPCa) detection. Among 2212 men with serum prostate-specific antigen levels of >3.0 ng/mL and/or suspicious digital rectal examinations who underwent mpMRI and targeted and/or systematic biopsies, 120 individuals exposed to 5-ARI treatment for over a year were identified. CsPCa was defined when the grade group (GG) was >2. The overall csPCa and iPCa detection rates were 44.6% and 18.8%, respectively. Since logistic regression revealed independent predictors of PCa, a randomized matched group of 236 individuals was selected for analysis. The PI-RADS distribution was comparable with 5-ARI exposure (p 0.685). The CsPCa detection rates in 5-ARI-naïve men and 5-ARI-exposed men were 52.6% and 47.4%, respectively (p 0.596). IPCa was detected in 37.6 and 62.5%, respectively (p 0.089). The tumor GG distribution based on 5-ARI exposure was similar (p 0.149) to the rates of csPCa and iPCa across the PI-RADS categories. We conclude that exposure to 5-ARI in suspected PCa men did not change the PI-RADS distribution and the csPCa and iPCa detection rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In this multicentric study, we tested the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting extracapsular extension (ECE) out of the prostate in order to plan surgical sparing of neurovascular bundles in radical prostatectomy. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify other risk factors for ECE. We found that it has a good ability to exclude extracapsular extension but a poor ability to identify it correctly. Risk factors other than mpMRI that predicted ECE were as follows: prostatic specific antigen, digital rectal examination, ratio of positive cores, and biopsy grade group. We suggest that using mpMRI exclusively should not be recommended to decide on surgical approaches. The correct identification of extracapsular extension (ECE) of prostate cancer (PCa) on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is crucial for surgeons in order to plan the nerve-sparing approach in radical prostatectomy. Nerve-sparing strategies allow for better outcomes in preserving erectile function and urinary continence, notwithstanding this can be penalized with worse oncologic results. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of preoperative mpMRI to predict ECE in the final prostatic specimen (PS) and identify other possible preoperative predictive factors of ECE as a secondary end-point. We investigated a database of two high-volume hospitals to identify men who underwent a prostate biopsy with a pre-biopsy mpMRI and a subsequent RP. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in predicting ECE were calculated. A univariate analysis was performed to find the association between image staging and pathological staging. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to investigate other preoperative predictive factors. A total of 1147 patients were selected, and 203 out of the 1147 (17.7%) patients were classified as ECE according to the mpMRI. ECE was reported by pathologists in 279 out of the 1147 PS (24.3%). The PPV was 0.58, the NPV was 0.72, the sensitivity was 0.32, and the specificity was 0.88. The multivariate analysis found that PSA (OR 1.057, C.I. 95%, 1.016–1.100, p = 0.006), digital rectal examination (OR 0.567, C.I. 95%, 0.417–0.770, p = 0.0001), ratio of positive cores (OR 9.687, C.I. 95%, 3.744–25.006, p = 0.0001), and biopsy grade in prostate biopsy (OR 1.394, C.I. 95%, 1.025–1.612, p = 0.0001) were independent factors of ECE. The mpMRI has a great ability to exclude ECE, notwithstanding that low sensitivity is still an important limitation of the technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The selection of proper candidates for prostate biopsy after magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has usually been studied in the overall population with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). However, the performance of these tools can change regarding the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) categories. We compared three different tools: PSA density, MRI-ERSPC risk calculator and Proclarix in 567 men with suspected PCa (PSA > 3 ng/mL and/or abnormal rectal examination) in one academic institution. All patients underwent multiple transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies after a multiparametric MRI was performed. We concluded that in the overall population, MRI-ERSPC RC outperformed PSA density and Proclarix, whereas in patients with lesions PI-RADS < 3 Proclarix was better than the other tools. However, no tool guaranteed 100% detection of clinically significant PCa in PI-RADS 4 and 5. Tools to properly select candidates for prostate biopsy after magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have usually been analyzed in overall populations with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). However, the performance of these tools can change regarding the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) categories due to the different incidence of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). The objective of the study was to analyze PSA density (PSAD), MRI-ERSPC risk calculator (RC), and Proclarix to properly select candidates for prostate biopsy regarding PI-RADS categories. We performed a head-to-head analysis of 567 men with suspected PCa, PSA > 3 ng/mL and/or abnormal rectal examination, in whom two to four core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsies to PI-RADS ≥ three lesions and/or 12-core TRUS systematic biopsies were performed after 3-tesla mpMRI between January 2018 and March 2020 in one academic institution. The overall detection of csPCa was 40.9% (6% in PI-RADS < 3, 14.8% in PI-RADS 3, 55.3% in PI-RADS 4, and 88.9% in PI-RADS 5). MRI-ERSPC model exhibited a net benefit over PSAD and Proclarix in the overall population. Proclarix outperformed PSAD and MRI-ERSPC RC in PI-RADS ≤ 3. PSAD outperformed MRI-ESRPC RC and Proclarix in PI-RADS > 3, although none of them exhibited 100% sensitivity for csPCa in this setting. Therefore, tools to properly select candidates for prostate biopsy after MRI must be analyzed regarding the PI-RADS categories. While MRI-ERSPC RC outperformed PSAD and Proclarix in the overall population, Proclarix outperformed in PI-RADS ≤ 3, and no tool guaranteed 100% detection of csPCa in PI-RADS 4 and 5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: It remains unclear whether patients with prostate cancer suspicion and negative magnetic resonance imaging (M.R.I.) can safely obviate biopsy. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical negative predictive value (N.P.V.) of M.R.I. in excluding prostate cancer. The secondary end-point was to compare N.P.V. to detect significant prostate cancer of M.R.I.The secondary end-point was to compare N.P.V. to detect significant prostate cancer in M.R.I. classified as P.I.-R.A.D.S.1 and as P.I.-R.A.D.S.2 Methods: From December 2012 to January 2017, 1128 M.R.I.s were performed consecutively due to prostate cancer clinical suspicion. The absence of suspicious and presence of low-risk areas were considered as negative M.R.I., P.I.-R.A.D.S.1 and 2. Biopsy results were compared according to P.I.-R.A.D.S. classification. The clinically significant disease was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology group higher than 1. Results: Two hundred and twenty-two (20%) M.R.I.s didn't highlight targetable imaging suspicious areas, which were recorded as negative tests: 130 (59%) P.I.-R.A.D.S.1 and 92 (41%) P.I.-R.A.D.S.2. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in at least one biopsy core was higher in the P.I.-R.A.D.S.2 group, 9% (8/92) vs 3% (4/130), p = 0.047. The N.P.V. in biopsy-naïve men and P.I.-R.A.D.S.1 was 95% for significant disease, while in patients subjected to repeated biopsies and P.I.-R.A.D.S.1, the N.P.V. found was 99%. Those rates differ from the P.I.-R.A.D.S.2 group: N.P.V. in biopsy-naïve patients was 84%, and 95% in repeated biopsy. Conclusions: P.I.-R.A.D.S.2 shouldn't be considered as a negative M.R.I. A biopsy cannot be routinely omitted in biopsy-naïve men with clinical suspicion of cancer and a low-suspicious area in M.R.I., giving the possibility of missing clinically significant tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]