Search

Contains fulltext : 287583.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is one of the most expensive cancers owing to frequent follow-up cystoscopies for detection of recurrence. OBJECTIVE: To assess if the noninvasive ADXBLADDER urine test could permit a less intensive surveillance schedule for patients with low-grade (LG) pTa tumor without carcinoma in situ (CIS) at the previous diagnosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a prospective, double-blind, multicenter study, 629 patients underwent follow-up cystoscopy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor/biopsy of suspect lesions, and ADXBLADDER testing. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Diagnostic test accuracy and decision curve analysis were used to evaluate the impact of ADXBLADDER on decision-making on whether to perform follow-up cystoscopy. The primary endpoint was the negative predictive value (NPV) of ADXBLADDER for detection of high-grade and/or CIS (HG/CIS) recurrence and its impact on reducing unnecessary cystoscopies. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: ADXBLADDER had sensitivity of 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 34.9-90.1%) and an NPV of 99.15% (95% CI 97.8-99.8%) for detection of HG/CIS recurrence. The probability of HG/CIS recurrence was 5.0% for ADXBLADDER-positive patients and 0.85% for ADXBLADDER-negative patients. For HG/CIS recurrence threshold probabilities between 0.85% and 5.0%, ADXBLADDER yields a net benefit with omission of cystoscopy for ADXBLADDER-negative patients. The corresponding net reduction in unnecessary cystoscopies ranges from 11 to 62 per 100 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LG pTa tumor at the previous diagnosis, for which the risk of HG/CIS recurrence is low and the ADXBLADDER NPV for ruling out HG/CIS recurrence is 99.15%, are ideally suited for a less intensive, personalized follow-up surveillance strategy using ADXBLADDER, with omission of cystoscopy for ADXBLADDER-negative patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: ADXBLADDER is a urine test that can predict the probability of recurrence of bladder cancer. Patients diagnosed with low-grade cancer confined to the bladder mucosa are ideally suited for less intensive follow-up using this test, which could reduce unnecessary cystoscopy procedures for those with a negative result, potentially improve quality of life, and reduce overall health care costs.

Focal therapy (FT) ablates areas of prostate cancer rather than treating the whole gland. We compared oncological outcomes of FT to radical prostatectomy (RP). Using prospective multicentre databases of 761 FT and 572 RP cases (November/2005-September/2018), patients with PSA

Background False positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) phenotypes prompt unnecessary biopsies. The Prostate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS) provides a unique opportunity to explore such phenotypes in biopsy-naïve men with raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and suspected cancer. Objective To compare mpMRI lesions in men with/without significant cancer on transperineal mapping biopsy (TPM). Design, setting, and participants PROMIS participants (n = 235) underwent mpMRI followed by a combined biopsy procedure at University College London Hospital, including 5-mm TPM as the reference standard. Patients were divided into four mutually exclusive groups according to TPM findings: (1) no cancer, (2) insignificant cancer, (3) definition 2 significant cancer (Gleason ≥3 + 4 of any length and/or maximum cancer core length ≥4 mm of any grade), and (4) definition 1 significant cancer (Gleason ≥4 + 3 of any length and/or maximum cancer core length ≥6 mm of any grade). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Index and/or additional lesions present in 178 participants were compared between TPM groups in terms of number, conspicuity, volume, location, and radiological characteristics. Results and limitations Most lesions were located in the peripheral zone. More men with significant cancer had two or more lesions than those without significant disease (67% vs 37%; p, Take Home Message Significant cancer-associated magnetic resonance imaging lesions in biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer are larger, more conspicuous, and more diffusion restricted than false positives. Prostate-specific antigen density and apparent diffusion coefficient are predictors of significant disease, and could help guide decisions to biopsy men with indeterminate phenotypes.

Contains fulltext : 245022.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVE: To compare directly the performance of the ADXBLADDER test with that of cytology in the detection of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) recurrences. BACKGROUND: ADXBLADDER is a urine test based on the detection of MCM5, a DNA licensing factor expressed in all cells capable of dividing. Expression is usually restricted to the basal stem cell compartment; however, in malignancy, MCM5-expressing cells can be found throughout the epithelium. Detection of MCM5 in urine sediment can be indicative of the presence of a bladder tumour. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentre prospective, blinded study was carried out from August 2017 and July 2019 at 21 European Union centres, 14 of which collected matching cytology data. Urine was collected from patients prior to cystoscopy. Urine cytology and ADXBLADDER were performed and compared to the diagnosis obtained by cystoscopy. The performance of cytology and ADXBLADDER were then compared. RESULTS: The overall performance of ADXBLADDER demonstrated a sensitivity of 51.9%, a specificity of 66.4%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 92%. The sensitivity of ADXBLADDER for low- and high-grade recurrences was 44.1% and 58.8%, respectively. By contrast, cytology sensitivity was 16.7%, specificity was 98% and NPV was 90.7%. Cytology sensitivity for both low- and high-grade disease was 17.6%. CONCLUSIONS: ADXBLADDER detection of both low- and high-grade NMIBC recurrence is superior to that of cytology, with ADXBLADDER able to exclude the presence of high-grade recurrence in 97.8% of cases compared to 97.1% with cytology. These results show that ADXBLADDER has promise as a more reliable alternative to urine cytology in the follow-up of NMIBC.

Objectives To assess change in functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment compared with outcomes after one focal HIFU treatment. Patients and methods In this multicentre study (2005-2016), 821 men underwent focal HIFU for localized non-metastatic prostate cancer. The patient-reported outcome measures of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage and erectile function (EF) score were prospectively collected for up to 3 years. To be included in the study, completion of at least one follow-up questionnaire was required. The primary outcome was comparison of change in functional outcomes between baseline and follow-up after one focal HIFU procedure vs after a second focal HIFU procedure, using IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaires. Results Of 821 men, 654 underwent one focal HIFU procedure and 167 underwent a second focal HIFU procedure. A total of 355 (54.3%) men undergoing one focal HIFU procedure and 65 (38.9%) with a second focal HIFU procedure returned follow-up questionnaires, respectively. The mean age and prostate-specific antigen level were 66.4 and 65.6 years, and 7.9 and 8.4 ng/mL, respectively. After one focal HIFU treatment, the mean change in IPSS was -0.03 (P = 0.02) and in IIEF (EF score) it was -0.4 (P = 0.02) at 1-2 years, with no subsequent decline. Absolute rates of erectile dysfunction increased from 9.9% to 20.8% (P = 0.08), leak-free continence decreased from 77.9% to 72.8% (P = 0.06) and pad-free continence from 98.6% to 94.8% (P = 0.07) at 1-2 years, respectively. IPSS prior to second focal HIFU treatment compared to baseline IPSS prior to first focal HIFU treatment was lower by -1.3 (P = 0.02), but mean IPSS change was +1.4 at 1-2 years (P = 0.03) and +1.2 at 2-3 years (P = 0.003) after the second focal HIFU treatment. The mean change in EF score after the second focal HIFU treatment was -0.2 at 1-2 years (P = 0.60) and -0.5 at 2-3 years (P = 0.10), with 17.8% and 6.2% of men with new erectile dysfunction. The rate of new pad use was 1.8% at 1-2 years and 2.6% at 2-3 years. Conclusion A second focal HIFU procedure causes minor detrimental effects on urinary function and EF. These data can be used to counsel patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer prior to considering HIFU therapy.

Bladder cancer is the sixth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the European Union. Here, we evaluate the performance of a novel, commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay utilising MCM5 antibodies (ADXBLADDER; Arquer Diagnostics Ltd, Sunderland, UK) for the detection of bladder cancer, in a blinded, prospective study of 856 patients, across seven centres, presenting with haematuria. The results were compared with the patients' clinical data and final diagnosis as defined by the results of the imaging and cystoscopy, with a prevalence of bladder cancer of 8.6%. ADXBLADDER detected bladder tumours in 54/74 cancers, giving overall sensitivity of 73.0% and an overall negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.4%. Sensitivity and NPV of ADXBLADDER were highest in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, both at 100%, and on analysis of non-pTa (pT1 and above) tumours, the sensitivity for detection was 97% with an NPV of 99.8%. A subset of 173 patients had matching cytology data; of these patients, 18 were positive for bladder cancer. ADXBLADDER detected 16/18 of these cancers, whilst cytology was positive in only four of 18, providing evidence that ADXBLADDER may be a more sensitive test for bladder cancer than standard urine cytology. PATIENT SUMMARY: We conducted a large clinical study of a novel, simple urine test (ADXBLADDER), which measures a protein (MCM5) in urine and can be used to detect bladder cancer in patients. We recruited 856 patients and demonstrated that the new urine test can detect bladder cancer with a high degree of accuracy, performing better than the most commonly used urine test-urine cytology. In conclusion, this novel ADXBLADDER urine test can be used to help detect bladder cancers and it can replace the current, standard urine test.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy occurs in one in five patients. The efficacy of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in recurrent cancer has not been established. Furthermore, high-quality data on new minimally invasive salvage focal ablative treatments are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of prostate MRI in detection of prostate cancer recurring after radiotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The FORECAST trial was both a paired-cohort diagnostic study evaluating prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsies in the detection of recurrent cancer and a cohort study evaluating focal ablation at six UK centres. A total of 181 patients were recruited, with 155 included in the MRI analysis and 93 in the focal ablation analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and a bone scan, followed by prostate mpMRI and MRI-targeted and transperineal template-mapping (TTPM) biopsies. MRI was reported blind to other tests. Those eligible underwent subsequent focal ablation. An amendment in December 2014 permitted focal ablation in patients with metastases. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were the sensitivity of MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for cancer detection, and urinary incontinence after focal ablation. A key secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Staging whole-body imaging revealed localised cancer in 128 patients (71%), with involvement of pelvic nodes only in 13 (7%) and metastases in 38 (21%). The sensitivity of MRI-targeted biopsy was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83–97%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 75% (95% CI 45–92%), 94% (95% CI 86–98%), and 65% (95% CI 38–86%), respectively. Four cancer (6%) were missed by TTPM biopsy and six (8%) were missed by MRI-targeted biopsy. The overall MRI sensitivity for detection of any cancer was 94% (95% CI 88–98%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 18% (95% CI 7–35%), 80% (95% CI 73–87%), and 46% (95% CI 19–75%), respectively. Among 93 patients undergoing focal ablation, urinary incontinence occurred in 15 (16%) and five (5%) had a grade ≥3 adverse event, with no rectal injuries. Median follow-up was 27 mo (interquartile range 18–36); overall PFS was 66% (interquartile range 54–75%) at 24 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies to optimise cancer detection. Focal ablation for areas of intraprostatic recurrence preserves continence in the majority, with good early cancer control. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate and MRI-targeted biopsies in outcomes after cancer-targeted high-intensity ultrasound or cryotherapy in patients with recurrent cancer after radiotherapy. Our findings show that these patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies and then ablative treatment focused on areas of recurrent cancer to preserve their quality of life.

Funder: Victorian Cancer Agency, Funder: NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Cancer Research UK, Funder: Cancer Council Tasmania, Funder: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Funder: Cancer Australia, Funder: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, Funder: Cancer Council South Australia, Funder: Swedish Cancer Society, Funder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Institut Català de la Salut, Funder: Cancer Council Victoria, Funder: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Funder: National Institutes of Health, BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants. METHODS: The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0). INTERPRETATION: After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer.

Objective To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. Materials and methods In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate®500) (March/2007–November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6–12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. Results 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment (p = 0.019). Conclusion Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours.

IntroductionSurvival in men diagnosed with de novo synchronous metastatic prostate cancer has increased following the use of upfront systemic treatment, using chemotherapy and other novel androgen receptor targeted agents, in addition to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Local cytoreductive and metastasis-directed interventions are hypothesised to confer additional survival benefit. In this setting, IP2-ATLANTA will explore progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes with the addition of sequential multimodal local and metastasis-directed treatments compared with standard care alone.MethodsA phase II, prospective, multicentre, three-arm randomised controlled trial incorporating an embedded feasibility pilot. All men with new histologically diagnosed, hormone-sensitive, metastatic prostate cancer, within 4 months of commencing ADT and of performance status 0 to 2 are eligible. Patients will be randomised to Control (standard of care (SOC)) OR Intervention 1 (minimally invasive ablative therapy to prostate±pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND)) OR Intervention 2 (cytoreductive radical prostatectomy±PLND OR prostate radiotherapy±pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT)). Metastatic burden will be prespecified using the Chemohormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease (CHAARTED) definition. Men with low burden disease in intervention arms are eligible for metastasis-directed therapy, in the form of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) or surgery. Standard systemic therapy will be administered in all arms with ADT±upfront systemic chemotherapy or androgen receptor agents. Patients will be followed-up for a minimum of 2 years. Primary outcome: PFS. Secondary outcomes include predictive factors for PFS and overall survival; urinary, sexual and rectal side effects. Embedded feasibility sample size is 80, with 918 patients required in the main phase II component. Study recruitment commenced in April 2019, with planned follow-up completed by April 2024.Ethics and disseminationApproved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee Wales-5 (19/WA0005). Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03763253; ISCRTN58401737

Focal therapy aims to treat areas of cancer to confer oncological control whilst reducing treatment-related functional detriment.To report oncological outcomes and adverse events following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for treating nonmetastatic prostate cancer.An analysis of 1379 patients with ≥6 mo of follow-up prospectively recorded in the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry from 13 UK centres (2005-2020) was conducted. Five or more years of follow-up was available for 325 (24%) patients. Focal HIFU therapy used a transrectal ultrasound-guided device (Sonablate; Sonacare Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA).Failure-free survival (FFS) was primarily defined as avoidance of no evidence of disease to require salvage whole-gland or systemic treatment, or metastases or prostate cancer-specific mortality. Differences in FFS between D'Amico risk groups were determined using a log-rank analysis. Adverse events were reported using Clavien-Dindo classification.The median (interquartile range) age was 66 (60-71) yr and prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 (4.9-9.4) ng/ml with D'Amico intermediate risk in 65% (896/1379) and high risk in 28% (386/1379). The overall median follow-up was 32 (17-58) mo; for those with ≥5 yr of follow-up, it was 82 (72-94). A total of 252 patients had repeat focal treatment due to residual or recurrent cancer; overall 92 patients required salvage whole-gland treatment. Kaplan-Meier 7-yr FFS was 69% (64-74%). Seven-year FFS in intermediate- and high-risk cancers was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62-75%) and 65% (95% CI 56-74%; p = 0.3). Clavien-Dindo2 adverse events occurred in 0.5% (7/1379). The median 10-yr follow-up is lacking.Focal HIFU in carefully selected patients with clinically significant prostate cancer, with six and three of ten patients having, respectively, intermediate- and high-risk cancer, has good cancer control in the medium term.Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment to areas of prostate with cancer can provide an alternative to treating the whole prostate. This treatment modality has good medium-term cancer control over 7 yr, although 10-yr data are not yet available.

For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies.Following the eligibility criteria PSA 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 7 and T-stage ≤ T2c, we included 830 radical (440 radiotherapy, 390 prostatectomy) and 530 focal therapy (cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) patients treated between 2005 and 2018 from multicentre registries in the Netherlands and the UK. A propensity score weighted (PSW) analysis was performed to compare failure-free survival (FFS), with failure defined as salvage treatment, metastatic disease, systemic treatment (androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy), or progression to watchful waiting. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Median (IQR) follow-up in each cohort was 55 (28-83) and 62 (42-83) months, respectively.At baseline, radical patients had higher PSA (10.3 versus 7.9) and higher-grade disease (31% ISUP 3 versus 11%) compared to focal patients. After PSW, all covariates were balanced (SMD 0.1). 6-year weighted FFS was higher after radical therapy (80.3%, 95% CI 73.9-87.3) than after focal therapy (72.8%, 95% CI 66.8-79.8) although not statistically significant (p = 0.1). 6-year weighted OS was significantly lower after radical therapy (93.4%, 95% CI 90.1-95.2 versus 97.5%, 95% CI 94-99.9; p = 0.02). When compared in a three-way analysis, focal and LRP patients had a higher risk of treatment failure than EBRT patients (p 0.001), but EBRT patients had a higher risk of mortality than focal patients (p = 0.008).Within the limitations of a cohort-based analysis in which residual confounders are likely to exist, we found no clinically relevant difference in cancer control conferred by focal therapy compared to radical therapy at 6 years.

INTRODUCTION: The traditional double blind RCT is the 'gold standard' trial design. For a variety of reasons, these designs often fail to accrue enough participants to conclude. This is particularly challenging in localized prostate cancer. The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) trial design may represent an alternative approach to delivering robust comparative data in prostate cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: IP3-PROSPECT is a cmRCT designed to test multiple prostate cancer interventions from eligible men in one cohort. Key to the design is two points of consent. First, at point of consent one, men referred for prostate cancer investigations are invited to join the cohort. They may then be randomly invited at a later date to consider an intervention at point of consent two. In the pilot phase we will test the acceptability and feasibility of developing the cohort.RESULTS: Acceptability and feasibility of the study will be measured by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The primary outcome measure is the rate of consent to inclusion to the IP3-PROSPECT cohort. Secondary outcome measures include the completeness of data collection at sites and return rates of patient questionnaires. We will also interview patients and healthcare professionals to explore their thoughts on the implementation, practicality and efficiency of IP3-PROSPECT.CONCLUSION: The IP3-PROSPECT study will evaluate the cmRCT design in prostate cancer. Initially we will pilot the design, assessing for acceptability and feasibility. The cmRCT is an innovative design that offers potential for building a modern comparative evidence base for prostate cancer.

Gleason score 7 prostate cancer with a higher proportion of pattern 4 (G4) has been linked to genomic heterogeneity and poorer patient outcome. The current assessment of G4 proportion uses estimation by a pathologist, with a higher proportion of G4 more likely to trigger additional imaging and treatment over active surveillance. This estimation method has been shown to have inter-observer variability. Fifteen patients with Prostate Grade Group (GG) 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) and fifteen patients with GG3 (Gleason 4 + 3) disease were selected from the PROMIS study with 192 haematoxylin and eosin-stained slides scanned. Two experienced uropathologists assessed the maximum cancer core length (MCCL) and G4 proportion using the current standard method (visual estimation) followed by detailed digital manual annotation of each G4 area and measurement of MCCL (planimetric estimation) using freely available software by the same two experts. We aimed to compare visual estimation of G4 and MCCL to a pathologist-driven digital measurement. We show that the visual and digital MCCL measurement differs up to 2 mm in 76.6% (23/30) with a high degree of agreement between the two measurements; Visual gave a median MCCL of 10 ± 2.70 mm (IQR 4, range 5–15 mm) compared to digital of 9.88 ± 3.09 mm (IQR 3.82, range 5.01–15.7 mm) (p = 0.64) The visual method for assessing G4 proportion over-estimates in all patients, compared to digital measurements [median 11.2% (IQR 38.75, range 4.7–17.9%) vs 30.4% (IQR 18.37, range 12.9–50.76%)]. The discordance was higher as the amount of G4 increased (Bias 18.71, CI 33.87–48.75, r 0.7, p

Introduction Focal therapy (FT) targets individual areas of cancer within the prostate, providing oncological control with minimal side-effects. Early evidence demonstrates encouraging short-medium-term outcomes. With no randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing FT to radical therapies, Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (CHRONOS) will compare the cancer control of these two strategies. Patients and methods CHRONOS is a parallel phase II RCT for patients with clinically significant non-metastatic prostate cancer, dependent upon clinician/patient decision, patients will enrol into either CHRONOS-A or CHRONOS-B. CHRONOS-A will randomize patients to either radical treatment or FT. CHRONOS-B is a multi-arm, multistage RCT comparing focal therapy alone to FT with neoadjuvant agents that might improve the current focal therapy outcomes. An internal pilot will determine the feasibility of, and compliance to, randomization. The proposed definitive study plans to recruit and randomize 1190 patients into CHRONOS-A and 1260 patients into CHRONOS-B. Results Primary outcome in CHRONOS-A is progression-free survival (transition to salvage local or systemic therapy, development of metastases or prostate-cancer-related mortality) and in CHRONOS-B is failure-free survival (includes the above definition and recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer after initial FT). Secondary outcomes include adverse events, health economics and functional outcomes measured using validated questionnaires. CHRONOS is powered to assess non-inferiority of FT compared to radical therapy in CHRONOS-A, and superiority of neoadjuvant agents with FT in CHRONOS-B. Conclusion CHRONOS will assess the oncological outcomes after FT compared to radical therapy and whether neoadjuvant treatments improve cancer control following one FT session.

Background All risk stratification strategies in cancer overlook a spectrum of disease. The Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS) provides a unique opportunity to explore cancers that are overlooked by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Objective To summarise attributes of cancers that are systematically overlooked by mpMRI. Design, setting, and participants PROMIS tested performance of mpMRI and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy, using 5 mm template mapping (TPM) biopsy as the reference standard. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Outcomes were overall and maximum Gleason scores, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD). Cancer attributes were compared between cancers that were overlooked and those that were detected. Results and limitations Of men with cancer, 7% (17/230; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4–12%) had significant disease overlooked by mpMRI according to definition 1 (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 of any length or MCCL ≥ 6 mm of any grade) and 13% (44/331; 95% CI 9.8–17%) according to definition 2 (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length or MCCL ≥ 4 mm). In comparison, TRUS-guided biopsy overlooked 52% (119/230; 95% CI 45–58%) of significant disease by definition 1 and 40% (132/331; 95% CI 35–45%) by definition 2. Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI had significantly lower overall and maximum Gleason scores (p = 0.0007; p 3 + 4 (Gleason Grade Groups 3–5; 95% CI 0–6.4%) or maximum Gleason score > 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Groups 4–5; 95% CI 0–8.0%) on TPM biopsy were undetected by mpMRI. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.15 reduced the proportion of men with undetected cancer to 5% (12/230; 95% CI 2.7–8.9%) for definition 1 and 9% (30/331; 95% CI 6.2–13%) for definition 2. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.10 reduced the proportion of men with undetected disease to 3% (6/230; 95% CI 1.0–5.6%) for definition 1 cancer and to 3% (11/331; 95% CI 1.7–5.9%) for definition 2 cancer. Limitations were post hoc analysis and uncertain significance of undetected lesions. Conclusions Overall, a small proportion of cancers are overlooked by mpMRI, with estimates ranging from 4.4% (lower boundary of 95% CI for definition 1) to 17% (upper boundary of 95% CI for definition 2). Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI are of lower grade and shorter length than cancers that are detected. Patient summary Prostate cancers that are undetected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are smaller and less aggressive than those that are detected, and none of the most aggressive cancers are overlooked by MRI.

PURPOSE: We determined whether prostate specific antigen criteria after focal high intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostate cancer could diagnose treatment failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 598 patients in a prospectively maintained national database underwent focal high intensity focused ultrasound with a Sonablate® 500 device from March 2007 to November 2016. Followup consisted of 3-month clinic visits and prostate specific antigen testing in year 1 with prostate specific antigen measurement every 6 to 12 months and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with biopsy for magnetic resonance imaging suspicious for recurrence. Treatment failure was considered any secondary treatment, tumor recurrence with Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastasis and/or prostate cancer related mortality. To diagnose failure we evaluated a series of nadir + x thresholds with x values of 0.1 to 2.0 ng/ml. RESULTS: Median patient age was 65 years (IQR 60-71) and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 6-9). Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease was present in 80% of cases. Tumors were radiologically staged as T1c-T2c in 522 of the 596 patients (88%) and as and T3a/b in 74 (12.4%). Baseline median prostate specific antigen was 7.80 ng/ml (IQR 5.96-10.45) in failed cases and 6.77 ng/ml (IQR 2.65-9.71) in cases without failure. Optimal performance according to the Youden index to indicate the most appropriate nadir + x at all analyzed time points at 3-month intervals showed that nadir + 1.0 ng/ml would have 27.3% to 100% sensitivity and 39.4% to 85.6% specificity depending on the time of evaluation in the first 3 years. Nadir + 1.5 ng/ml showed 18.2% to 100% sensitivity and 60.6% to 91.8% specificity with nadir + 2.0 ng/ml leading to similar sensitivity and specificity ranges. Nadir + 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and nadir + 1.5 ng/ml at 24 and 36 months had 100% sensitivity and 96.1% to 100% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Following focal high intensity focused ultrasound a prostate specific antigen nadir of 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and 1.5 ng/ml at 24 to 36 months might be used to triage men requiring magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. These data need prospective validation.

International audience; Purpose: Detection of MCM5 containing cells in urine has been shown to be indicative of the presence of a bladder tumor on primary diagnosis. In this study we evaluate diagnostic performance of ADXBLADDER in patients undergoing cystoscopic surveillance in nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer followup.Materials and methods: A multicenter prospective blinded study was performed at 21 European centers with patients undergoing cystoscopy for nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer surveillance, diagnosed in the preceding 2 years. Urine was collected from all eligible patients and ADXBLADDER-MCM5 testing was performed. Performance characteristics were calculated by comparing MCM5 results to the outcome of cystoscopy plus pathological assessment.Results: Of 1,431 eligible patients enrolled 127 were diagnosed with a bladder cancer recurrence. The overall sensitivity for the ADXBLADDER-MCM5 test in detecting bladder cancer recurrence was 44.9% (95% CI 36.1-54) with a 75.6% sensitivity for nonpTaLG tumors (95% CI 59.7-87.6). Specificity was 71.1% (95% CI 68.5-73.5). The overall negative predictive value was 93% (95% CI 91.2-94.5). However, ADXBLADDER was able to rule out the presence of a nonpTaLG recurrent tumor with a negative predictive value of 99.0% (95% CI 98.2-99.5). No statistically significant differences in the performance of ADXBLADDER were observed as a result of age or sex.Conclusions: This large blinded prospective study demonstrates that in the followup of patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer ADXBLADDER is able to exclude the presence of the most aggressive tumors with a negative predictive value of 99%. These results indicate that ADXBLADDER could be incorporated in the followup strategy of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer.

MC3 Working Group: Rehan Akbani21, Pavana Anur22, Matthew H. Bailey1,2,3, Alex Buchanan9, Kami Chiotti9, Kyle Covington12,23, Allison Creason9, Li Ding1,2,3,20, Kyle Ellrott9, Yu Fan21, Steven Foltz1,2, Gad Getz8,14,15,16, Walker Hale12, David Haussler24,25, Julian M. Hess8,26, Carolyn M. Hutter27, Cyriac Kandoth28, Katayoon Kasaian29,30, Melpomeni Kasapi27, Dave Larson1 , Ignaty Leshchiner8, John Letaw31, Singer Ma32, Michael D. McLellan1,3,20, Yifei Men32, Gordon B. Mills33,34, Beifang Niu35, Myron Peto22, Amie Radenbaugh24, Sheila M. Reynolds36, Gordon Saksena8, Heidi Sofia27, Chip Stewart8, Adam J. Struck31, Joshua M. Stuart24,37, Wenyi Wang21, John N. Weinstein38, David A. Wheeler12,13, Christopher K. Wong24,39, Liu Xi12 & Kai Ye40,41 21Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 22Molecular and Medical Genetics, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA. 23Castle Biosciences Inc, Friendswood, TX 77546, USA. 24UC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. 25Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. 26Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Cancer Research, Charlestown, MA 02114, USA. 27National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA. 28Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Molecular Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA. 29Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, ON M5G 0A3, Canada. 30Canada’s Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre, BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4S6, Canada. 31Computational Biology Program, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA. 32DNAnexus Inc, Mountain View, CA 94040, USA. 33Department of Systems Biology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 34Precision Oncology, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA. 35Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. 36Institute for Systems Biology, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. 37Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. 38Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology and Department of Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 39Biomolecular Engineering Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. 40School of Elect, PCAWG novel somatic mutation calling methods working group: Matthew H. Bailey1,2,3, Beifang Niu35, Matthias Bieg42,43, Paul C. Boutros6,44,45,46, Ivo Buchhalter43,47,48, Adam P. Butler49, Ken Chen50, Zechen Chong51, Li Ding1,2,3,20, Oliver Drechsel52,53, Lewis Jonathan Dursi6,7, Roland Eils47,48,54,55, Kyle Ellrott9, Shadrielle M. G. Espiritu6, Yu Fan21, Robert S. Fulton1,3,20, Shengjie Gao56, Josep L. l. Gelpi57,58, Mark B. Gerstein5,18,19, Gad Getz8,14,15,16, Santiago Gonzalez59,60, Ivo G. Gut52,61, Faraz Hach62,63, Michael C. Heinold47,48, Julian M. Hess8,26, Jonathan Hinton49, Taobo Hu64, Vincent Huang6, Yi Huang65,66, Barbara Hutter43,67,68, David R. Jones49, Jongsun Jung69, Natalie Jäger47, Hyung-Lae Kim70, Kortine Kleinheinz47,48, Sushant Kumar5,19, Yogesh Kumar64, Christopher M. Lalansingh6, Ignaty Leshchiner8, Ivica Letunic71, Dimitri Livitz8, Eric Z. Ma64, Yosef E. Maruvka8,26,72, R. Jay Mashl1,2, Michael D. McLellan1,3,20, Andrew Menzies49, Ana Milovanovic57, Morten Muhlig Nielsen73, Stephan Ossowski52,53,74, Nagarajan Paramasivam43,47, Jakob Skou Pedersen73,75, Marc D. Perry76,77, Montserrat Puiggròs57, Keiran M. Raine49, Esther Rheinbay8,14,72, Romina Royo57, S. Cenk Sahinalp62,78,79, Gordon Saksena8, Iman Sarrafi62,78, Matthias Schlesner47,80, Jared T. Simpson6,17, Lucy Stebbings49, Chip Stewart8, Miranda D. Stobbe52,61, Jon W. Teague49, Grace Tiao8, David Torrents57,81, Jeremiah A. Wala8,14,82, Jiayin Wang1,40,66, Wenyi Wang21, Sebastian M. Waszak60, Joachim Weischenfeldt60,83,84, Michael C. Wendl1,10,11, Johannes Werner47,85, Zhenggang Wu64, Hong Xue64, Sergei Yakneen60, Takafumi N. Yamaguchi6, Kai Ye40,41, Venkata D. Yellapantula20,86, Christina K. Yung76 & Junjun Zhang76, PCAWG Consortium: Lauri A. Aaltonen87, Federico Abascal49, Adam Abeshouse88, Hiroyuki Aburatani89, David J. Adams49, Nishant Agrawal90, Keun Soo Ahn91, Sung-Min Ahn92, Hiroshi Aikata93, Rehan Akbani21, Kadir C. Akdemir50, Hikmat Al-Ahmadie88, Sultan T. Al-Sedairy94, Fatima Al-Shahrour95, Malik Alawi96,97, Monique Albert98, Kenneth Aldape99,100, Ludmil B. Alexandrov49,101,102, Adrian Ally30, Kathryn Alsop103, Eva G. Alvarez104,105,106, Fernanda Amary107, Samirkumar B. Amin108,109,110, Brice Aminou76, Ole Ammerpohl111,112, Matthew J. Anderson113, Yeng Ang114, Davide Antonello115, Pavana Anur22, Samuel Aparicio116, Elizabeth L. Appelbaum1,117, Yasuhito Arai118, Axel Aretz119, Koji Arihiro93, Shun-ichi Ariizumi120, Joshua Armenia121, Laurent Arnould122, Sylvia Asa123,124, Yassen Assenov125, Gurnit Atwal6,126,127, Sietse Aukema112,128, J. Todd Auman129, Miriam R. Aure130, Philip Awadalla6,126, Marta Aymerich131, Gary D. Bader126, Adrian Baez-Ortega132, Matthew H. Bailey1,2,3, Peter J. Bailey133, Miruna Balasundaram30, Saianand Balu134, Pratiti Bandopadhayay8,135,136, Rosamonde E. Banks137, Stefano Barbi138, Andrew P. Barbour139,140, Jonathan Barenboim6, Jill Barnholtz-Sloan141,142, Hugh Barr143, Elisabet Barrera59, John Bartlett98,144, Javier Bartolome57, Claudio Bassi115, Oliver F. Bathe145,146, Daniel Baumhoer147, Prashant Bavi148, Stephen B. Baylin149,150, Wojciech Bazant59, Duncan Beardsmore151, Timothy A. Beck152,153, Sam Behjati49, Andreas Behren154, Beifang Niu35, Cindy Bell155, Sergi Beltran52,61, Christopher Benz156, Andrew Berchuck157, Anke K. Bergmann158, Erik N. Bergstrom101,102, Benjamin P. Berman159,160,161, Daniel M. Berney162, Stephan H. Bernhart163,164,165, Rameen Beroukhim8,14,82, Mario Berrios166, Samantha Bersani167, Johanna Bertl73,168, Miguel Betancourt169, Vinayak Bhandari6,44, Shriram G. Bhosle49, Andrew V. Biankin133,170,171,172, Matthias Bieg42,43, Darell Bigner173, Hans Binder163,164, Ewan Birney59, Michael Birrer72, Nidhan K. Biswas174, Bodil Bjerkehagen147,175, Tom Bodenheimer134, Lori Boice176, Giada Bonizzato177, Johann S. De Bono178, Arnoud Boot179,180, Moiz S. Bootwalla166, Ake Borg181, Arndt Borkhardt182, Keith A. Boroevich183,184, Ivan Borozan6, Christoph Borst185, Marcus Bosenberg186, Mattia Bosio52,53,57, Jacqueline Boultwood187, Guillaume Bourque188,189, Paul C. Boutros6,44,45,46, G. Steven Bova190, David T. Bowen49,191, Reanne Bowlby30, David D. L. Bowtell103, Sandrine Boyault192, Rich Boyce59, Jeffrey Boyd193, Alvis Brazma59, Paul Brennan194, Daniel S. Brewer195,196, Arie B. Brinkman197, Robert G. Bristow44,198,199,200,201, Russell R. Broaddus99, Jane E. Brock202, Malcolm Brock203, Annegien Broeks204, Angela N. Brooks8,24,37,82, Denise Brooks30, Benedikt Brors67,205,206, Søren Brunak207,208, Timothy J. C. Bruxner113,209, Alicia L. Bruzos104,105,106, Alex Buchanan9, Ivo Buchhalter43,47,48, Christiane Buchholz210, Susan Bullman8,82, Hazel Burke211, Birgit Burkhardt212, Kathleen H. Burns213,214, John Busanovich8,215, Carlos D. Bustamante216,217, Adam P. Butler49, Atul J. Butte218, Niall J. Byrne76, Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale130,219, Samantha J. Caesar-Johnson220, Andy Cafferkey59, Declan Cahill221, Claudia Calabrese59,60, Carlos Caldas222,223, Fabien Calvo224, Niedzica Camacho178, Peter J. Campbell49,225, Elias Campo226,227, Cinzia Cantù177, Shaolong Cao21, Thomas E. Carey228, Joana Carlevaro-Fita229,230,231, Rebecca Carlsen30, Ivana Cataldo167,177, Mario Cazzola232, Jonathan Cebon154, Robert Cerfolio233, Dianne E. Chadwick234, Dimple Chakravarty235, Don Chalmers236, Calvin Wing Yiu Chan47,237, Kin Chan238, Michelle Chan-Seng-Yue148, Vishal S. Chandan239, David K. Chang133,170, Stephen J. Chanock240, Lorraine A. Chantrill170,241, Aurélien Chateigner76,242, Nilanjan Chatterjee149,243, Kazuaki Chayama93, Hsiao-Wei Chen114,121, Jieming Chen218, Ken Chen50, Yiwen Chen21, Zhaohong Chen244, Andrew D. Cherniack8,82, Jeremy Chien245, Yoke-Eng Chiew246,247, Suet-Feung Chin222,223, Juok Cho8, Sunghoon Cho248, Jung Kyoon Choi249, Wan Choi250, Christine Chomienne251, Zechen Chong51, Su Pin Choo252, Angela Chou170,246, Angelika N. Christ113, Elizabeth L. Christie103, Eric Chuah30, Carrie Cibulskis8, Kristian Cibulskis8, Sara Cingarlini253, Peter Clapham49, Alexander Claviez254, Sean Cleary148,255, Nicole Cloonan256, Marek Cmero257,258,259, Colin C. Collins62, Ashton A. Connor255,260, Susanna L. Cooke133, Colin S. Cooper178,196,261, Leslie Cope149, Vincenzo Corbo138,177, Matthew G. Cordes1,262, Stephen M. Cordner263, Isidro Cortés-Ciriano264,265,266, Kyle Covington12,23, Prue A. Cowin267, Brian Craft24, David Craft8,268, Chad J. Creighton269, Yupeng Cun270, Erin Curley271, Ioana Cutcutache179,180, Karolina Czajka272, Bogdan Czerniak99,273, Rebecca A. Dagg274, Ludmila Danilova149, Maria Vittoria Davi275, Natalie R. Davidson276,277,278,279,280, Helen Davies49,281,282, Ian J. Davis283, Brandi N. Davis-Dusenbery284, Kevin J. Dawson49, Francisco M. De La Vega216,217,285, Ricardo De Paoli-Iseppi211, Timothy Defreitas8, Angelo P. Dei Tos286, Olivier Delaneau287,288,289, John A. Demchok220, Jonas Demeulemeester290,291, German M. Demidov52,53,74, Deniz Demircioğlu292,293, Nening M. Dennis221, Robert E. Denroche148, Stefan C. Dentro49,290,294, Nikita Desai76, Vikram Deshpande72, Amit G. Deshwar295, Christine Desmedt296,297, Jordi Deu-Pons298,299, Noreen Dhalla30, Neesha C. Dhani300, Priyanka Dhingra301,302, Rajiv Dhir303, Anthony DiBiase304, Klev Diamanti305, Li Ding1,2,3,20, Shuai Ding306, Huy Q. Dinh159, Luc Dirix307, HarshaVardhan Doddapaneni12, Nilgun Donmez62,78, Michelle T. Dow244, Ronny Drapkin308, Oliver Drechsel52,53, Ruben M. Drews223, Serge Serge49, Tim Dudderidge150,221, Ana Dueso-Barroso57, Andrew J. Dunford8, Michael Dunn309, Lewis Jonathan Dursi6,7, Fraser R. Duthie133,310, Ken Dutton-Regester311, Jenna Eagles272, Douglas F. Easton312,313, Stuart Edmonds314, Paul A. Edwards223,315, Sandra E. Edwards178, Rosalind A. Eeles178,221, Anna Ehinger316, Juergen Eils54,55, Roland Eils47,48,54,55, Adel El-Naggar99,273, Matthew Eldridge223, Kyle Ellrott9, Serap Erkek60, Georgia Escaramis53,317,318, Shadrielle M. G. Espiritu6, Xavier Estivill53,319, Dariush Etemadmoghadam103, Jorunn E. Eyfjord320, Bishoy M. Faltas280, Daiming Fan321, Yu Fan21, William C. Faquin72, Claudiu Farcas244, Matteo Fassan322, Aquila Fatima323, Francesco Favero324, Nodirjon Fayzullaev76, Ina Felau220, Sian Fereday103, Martin L. Ferguson325, Vincent Ferretti76,326, Lars Feuerbach205, Matthew A. Field327, J. Lynn Fink57,113, Gaetano Finocchiaro328, Cyril Fisher221, Matthew W. Fittall290, Anna Fitzgerald329, Rebecca C. Fitzgerald282, Adrienne M. Flanagan330, Neil E. Fleshner331, Paul Flicek59, John A. Foekens332, Kwun M. Fong333, Nuno A. Fonseca59,334, Christopher S. Foster335,336, Natalie S. Fox6, Michael Fraser6, Scott Frazer8, Milana Frenkel-Morgenstern337, William Friedman338, Joan Frigola298, Catrina C. Fronick1,262, Akihiro Fujimoto184, Masashi Fujita184, Masashi Fukayama339, Lucinda A. Fulton1 , Robert S. Fulton1,3,20, Mayuko Furuta184, P. Andrew Futreal340, Anja Füllgrabe59, Stacey B. Gabriel8, Steven Gallinger148,255,260, Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini341, Jianjiong Gao121, Shengjie Gao56, Levi Garraway82, Øystein Garred342, Erik Garrison49, Dale W. Garsed103, Nils Gehlenborg8,343, Josep L. l. Gelpi57,58, Joshy George110, Daniela S. Gerhard344, Clarissa Gerhauser345, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald346,347, Mark B. Gerstein5,18,19, Moritz Gerstung59,60, Gad Getz8,14,15,16, Mohammed Ghori49, Ronald Ghossein348, Nasra H. Giama349, Richard A. Gibbs12, Anthony J. Gill170,350, Pelvender Gill351, Dilip D. Giri348, Dominik Glodzik49, Vincent J. Gnanapragasam352,353, Maria Elisabeth Goebler354, Mary J. Goldman24, Carmen Gomez355, Santiago Gonzalez59,60, Abel Gonzalez-Perez298,299,356, Dmitry A. Gordenin357, James Gossage358, Kunihito Gotoh359, Ramaswamy Govindan3, Dorthe Grabau360, Janet S. Graham133,361, Robert C. Grant148,260, Anthony R. Green315, Eric Green27, Liliana Greger59, Nicola Grehan282, Sonia Grimaldi177, Sean M. Grimmond362, Robert L. Grossman363, Adam Grundhoff97,364, Gunes Gundem88, Qianyun Guo75, Manaswi Gupta8, Shailja Gupta365, Ivo G. Gut52,61, Marta Gut52,61, Jonathan Göke292,366, Gavin Ha8, Andrea Haake111, David Haan37, Siegfried Haas185, Kerstin Haase290, James E. Haber367, Nina Habermann60, Faraz Hach62,63, Syed Haider6, Natsuko Hama118, Freddie C. Hamdy351, Anne Hamilton267, Mark P. Hamilton368, Leng Han369, George B. Hanna370, Martin Hansmann371, Nicholas J. Haradhvala8,72, Olivier Harismendy102,372, Ivon Harliwong113, Arif O. Harmanci5,373, Eoghan Harrington374, Takanori Hasegawa375, David Haussler24,25, Steve Hawkins223, Shinya Hayami376, Shuto Hayashi375, D. Neil Hayes134,377,378, Stephen J. Hayes379,380, Nicholas K. Hayward211,311, Steven Hazell221, Yao He381, Allison P. Heath382, Simon C. Heath52,61, David Hedley300, Apurva M. Hegde38, David I. Heiman8, Michael C. Heinold47,48, Zachary Heins88, Lawrence E. Heisler152, Eva Hellstrom-Lindberg383, Mohamed Helmy384, Seong Gu Heo385, Austin J. Hepperla134, José María Heredia-Genestar386, Carl Herrmann47,48,387, Peter Hersey211, Julian M. Hess8,26, Holmfridur Hilmarsdottir320, Jonathan Hinton49, Satoshi Hirano388, Nobuyoshi Hiraoka389, Katherine A. Hoadley134,390, Asger Hobolth75,168, Ermin Hodzic78, Jessica I. Hoell182, Steve Hoffmann163,164,165,391, Oliver Hofmann392, Andrea Holbrook166, Aliaksei Z. Holik53, Michael A. Hollingsworth393, Oliver Holmes209,311, Robert A. Holt30, Chen Hong205,237, Eun Pyo Hong385, Jongwhi H. Hong394, Gerrit K. Hooijer395, Henrik Hornshøj73, Fumie Hosoda118, Yong Hou56,396, Volker Hovestadt397, William Howat352, Alan P. Hoyle134, Ralph H. Hruban149, Jianhong Hu12, Taobo Hu64, Xing Hua240, Kuan-lin Huang1,398, Mei Huang176, Mi Ni Huang179,180, Vincent Huang6, Yi Huang65,66, Wolfgang Huber60, Thomas J. Hudson272,399, Michael Hummel400, Jillian A. Hung246,247, David Huntsman401, Ted R. Hupp402, Jason Huse88, Matthew R. Huska403, Barbara Hutter43,67,68, Carolyn M. Hutter27, Daniel Hübschmann48,54,404,405,406, Christine A. Iacobuzio-Donahue348, Charles David Imbusch205, Marcin Imielinski407,408, Seiya Imoto375, William B. Isaacs409, Keren Isaev6,44, Shumpei Ishikawa410, Murat Iskar397, S. M. Ashiqul Islam244, Michael Ittmann411,412,413, Sinisa Ivkovic284, Jose M. G. Izarzugaza414, Jocelyne Jacquemier415, Valerie Jakrot211, Nigel B. Jamieson133,172,416, Gun Ho Jang148, Se Jin Jang417, Joy C. Jayaseelan12, Reyka Jayasinghe1 , Stuart R. Jefferys134, Karine Jegalian418, Jennifer L. Jennings419, Seung-Hyup Jeon250, Lara Jerman60,420, Yuan Ji421,422, Wei Jiao6, Peter A. Johansson311, Amber L. Johns170, Jeremy Johns272, Rory Johnson230,423, Todd A. Johnson183, Clemency Jolly290, Yann Joly424, Jon G. Jonasson320, Corbin D. Jones425, David R. Jones49, David T. W. Jones426,427, Nic Jones428, Steven J. M. Jones30, Jos Jonkers204, Young Seok Ju49,249, Hartmut Juhl429, Jongsun Jung69, Malene Juul73, Randi Istrup Juul73, Sissel Juul374, Natalie Jäger47, Rolf Kabbe47, Andre Kahles276,277,278,279,430, Abdullah Kahraman431,432,433, Vera B. Kaiser434, Hojabr Kakavand211, Sangeetha Kalimuthu148, Christof von Kalle405, Koo Jeong Kang91, Katalin Karaszi351, Beth Karlan435, Rosa Karlić436, Dennis Karsch437, Katayoon Kasaian29,30, Karin S. Kassahn113,438, Hitoshi Katai439, Mamoru Kato440, Hiroto Katoh410, Yoshiiku Kawakami93, Jonathan D. Kay117, Stephen H. Kazakoff209,311, Marat D. Kazanov441,442,443, Maria Keays59, Electron Kebebew444,445, Richard F. Kefford446, Manolis Kellis8,447, James G. Kench170,350,448, Catherine J. Kennedy246,247, Jules N. A. Kerssemakers47, David Khoo273, Vincent Khoo221, Narong Khuntikeo115,449, Ekta Khurana301,302,450,451, Helena Kilpinen117, Hark Kyun Kim452, Hyung-Lae Kim70, Hyung-Yong Kim415, Hyunghwan Kim250, Jaegil Kim8, Jihoon Kim453, Jong K. Kim454, Youngwook Kim455,456, Tari A. King457,458,459, Wolfram Klapper128, Kortine Kleinheinz47,48, Leszek J. Klimczak460, Stian Knappskog49,461, Michael Kneba437, Bartha M. Knoppers424, Youngil Koh462,463, Jan Komorowski305,464, Daisuke Komura410, Mitsuhiro Komura375, Gu Kong415, Marcel Kool426,465, Jan O. Korbel59,60, Viktoriya Korchina12, Andrey Korshunov465, Michael Koscher465, Roelof Koster466, Zsofia Kote-Jarai178, Antonios Koures244, Milena Kovacevic284, Barbara Kremeyer49, Helene Kretzmer164,165, Markus Kreuz467, Savitri Krishnamurthy99,468, Dieter Kube469, Kiran Kumar8, Pardeep Kumar221, Sushant Kumar5,19, Yogesh Kumar64, Ritika Kundra114,121, Kirsten Kübler8,14,72, Ralf Küppers470, Jesper Lagergren383,471, Phillip H. Lai166, Peter W. Laird472, Sunil R. Lakhani473, Christopher M. Lalansingh6, Emilie Lalonde6, Fabien C. Lamaze6, Adam Lambert351, Eric Lander8, Pablo Landgraf474,475, Luca Landoni115, Anita Langerød130, Andrés Lanzós230,231,423, Denis Larsimont476, Erik Larsson477, Mark Lathrop189, Loretta M. S. Lau478, Chris Lawerenz55, Rita T. Lawlor177, Michael S. Lawrence8,72,183, Alexander J. Lazar99,108, Xuan Le479, Darlene Lee30, Donghoon Lee5, Eunjung Alice Lee480, Hee Jin Lee417, Jake June-Koo Lee264,266, Jeong-Yeon Lee481, Juhee Lee482, Ming Ta Michael Lee340, Henry Lee-Six49, Kjong-Van Lehmann276,277,278,279,430, Hans Lehrach483, Dido Lenze400, Conrad R. Leonard209,311, Daniel A. Leongamornlert49,178, Ignaty Leshchiner8, Louis Letourneau484, Ivica Letunic71, Douglas A. Levine88,485, Lora Lewis12, Tim Ley486, Chang Li56,396, Constance H. Li6,44, Haiyan Irene Li30, Jun Li21, Lin Li56, Shantao Li5, Siliang Li56,396, Xiaobo Li56,396, Xiaotong Li5, Xinyue Li56, Yilong Li49, Han Liang21, Sheng-Ben Liang234, Peter Lichter68,397, Pei Lin8, Ziao Lin8,487, W. M. Linehan488, Ole Christian Lingjærde489, Dongbing Liu56,396, Eric Minwei Liu88,301,302, Fei-Fei Liu201,490, Fenglin Liu381,491, Jia Liu492, Xingmin Liu56,396, Julie Livingstone6, Dimitri Livitz8, Naomi Livni221, Lucas Lochovsky5,19,110, Markus Loeffler467, Georgina V. Long211, Armando Lopez-Guillermo493, Shaoke Lou5,19, David N. Louis72, Laurence B. Lovat117, Yiling Lu38, Yong-Jie Lu162,494, Youyong Lu495,496,497, Claudio Luchini167, Ilinca Lungu144,148, Xuemei Luo152, Hayley J. Luxton117, Andy G. Lynch223,315,498, Lisa Lype36, Cristina López111,112, Carlos López-Otín499, Eric Z. Ma64, Yussanne Ma30, Gaetan MacGrogan500, Shona MacRae501, Geoff Macintyre223, Tobias Madsen73, Kazuhiro Maejima184, Andrea Mafficini177, Dennis T. Maglinte166,502, Arindam Maitra174, Partha P. Majumder174, Luca Malcovati232, Salem Malikic62,78, Giuseppe Malleo115, Graham J. Mann211,246,503, Luisa Mantovani-Löffler504, Kathleen Marchal505,506, Giovanni Marchegiani115, Elaine R. Mardis1,193,507, Adam A. Margolin31, Maximillian G. Marin37, Florian Markowetz223,315, Julia Markowski403, Jeffrey Marks508, Tomas Marques-Bonet61,81,386,509, Marco A. Marra30, Luke Marsden351, John W. M. Martens332, Sancha Martin49,510, Jose I. Martin-Subero81,511, Iñigo Martincorena49, Alexander Martinez-Fundichely301,302,451 Yosef E. Maruvka8,26,72, R. Jay Mashl1,2, Charlie E. Massie223, Thomas J. Matthew37, Lucy Matthews178, Erik Mayer221,512, Simon Mayes513, Michael Mayo30, Faridah Mbabaali272, Karen McCune514, Ultan McDermott49, Patrick D. McGillivray19, Michael D. McLellan1,3,20, John D. McPherson148,272,515, John R. McPherson179,180, Treasa A. McPherson260, Samuel R. Meier8, Alice Meng516, Shaowu Meng134, Andrew Menzies49, Neil D. Merrett115,517, Sue Merson178, Matthew Meyerson8,14,82, William U. Meyerson4,5, Piotr A. Mieczkowski518, George L. Mihaiescu76, Sanja Mijalkovic284, Ana Mijalkovic Mijalkovic-Lazic284, Tom Mikkelsen519, Michele Milella253, Linda Mileshkin103, Christopher A. Miller1 , David K. Miller113,170, Jessica K. Miller272, Gordon B. Mills33,34, Ana Milovanovic57, Sarah Minner520, Marco Miotto115, Gisela Mir Arnau267, Lisa Mirabello240, Chris Mitchell103, Thomas J. Mitchell49,315,352, Satoru Miyano375, Naoki Miyoshi375, Shinichi Mizuno521, Fruzsina Molnár-Gábor522, Malcolm J. Moore300, Richard A. Moore30, Sandro Morganella49, Quaid D. Morris127,490, Carl Morrison523,524, Lisle E. Mose134, Catherine D. Moser349, Ferran Muiños298,299, Loris Mularoni298,299, Andrew J. Mungall30, Karen Mungall30, Elizabeth A. Musgrove133, Ville Mustonen525,526,527, David Mutch528, Francesc Muyas52,53,74, Donna M. Muzny12, Alfonso Muñoz59, Jerome Myers529, Ola Myklebost461, Peter Möller530, Genta Nagae89, Adnan M. Nagrial170, Hardeep K. Nahal-Bose76, Hitoshi Nakagama531, Hidewaki Nakagawa184, Hiromi Nakamura118, Toru Nakamura388, Kaoru Nakano184, Tannistha Nandi532, Jyoti Nangalia49, Mia Nastic284, Arcadi Navarro61,81,386, Fabio C. P. Navarro19, David E. Neal223,352, Gerd Nettekoven533, Felicity Newell209,311, Steven J. Newhouse59, Yulia Newton37, Alvin Wei Tian Ng534, Anthony Ng535, Jonathan Nicholson49, David Nicol221, Yongzhan Nie321,536, G. Petur Nielsen72, Morten Muhlig Nielsen73, Serena Nik-Zainal49,281,282,537, Michael S. Noble8, Katia Nones209,311, Paul A. Northcott538, Faiyaz Notta148,539, Brian D. O’Connor76,540, Peter O’Donnell541, Maria O’Donovan282, Sarah O’Meara49, Brian Patrick O’Neill542, J. Robert O’Neill543, David Ocana59, Angelica Ochoa88, Layla Oesper544, Christopher Ogden221, Hideki Ohdan93, Kazuhiro Ohi375, Lucila Ohno-Machado244, Karin A. Oien523,545, Akinyemi I. Ojesina546,547,548, Hidenori Ojima549, Takuji Okusaka550, Larsson Omberg551, Choon Kiat Ong552, Stephan Ossowski52,53,74, German Ott553, B. F. Francis Ouellette76,554, Christine P’ng6, Marta Paczkowska6, Salvatore Paiella115, Chawalit Pairojkul523, Marina Pajic170, Qiang Pan-Hammarström56,555, Elli Papaemmanuil49, Irene Papatheodorou59, Nagarajan Paramasivam43,47, Ji Wan Park385, Joong-Won Park556, Keunchil Park557,558, Kiejung Park559, Peter J. Park264,266, Joel S. Parker518, Simon L. Parsons124, Harvey Pass560, Danielle Pasternack272, Alessandro Pastore276, Ann-Marie Patch209,311, Iris Pauporté251, Antonio Pea115, John V. Pearson209,311, Chandra Sekhar Pedamallu8,14,82, Jakob Skou Pedersen73,75, Paolo Pederzoli115, Martin Peifer270, Nathan A. Pennell561, Charles M. Perou129,518, Marc D. Perry76,77, Gloria M. Petersen562, Myron Peto22, Nicholas Petrelli563, Robert Petryszak59, Stefan M. Pfister426,465,564, Mark Phillips424, Oriol Pich298,299, Hilda A. Pickett478, Todd D. Pihl565, Nischalan Pillay566, Sarah Pinder567, Mark Pinese170, Andreia V. Pinho568, Esa Pitkänen60, Xavier Pivot569, Elena Piñeiro-Yáñez95, Laura Planko533, Christoph Plass345, Paz Polak8,14,15, Tirso Pons570, Irinel Popescu571, Olga Potapova572, Aparna Prasad52, Shaun R. Preston573, Manuel Prinz47, Antonia L. Pritchard311, Stephenie D. Prokopec6, Elena Provenzano574, Xose S. Puente499, Sonia Puig176, Montserrat Puiggròs57, Sergio Pulido-Tamayo505,506, Gulietta M. Pupo246, Colin A. Purdie575, Michael C. Quinn209,311, Raquel Rabionet52,53,576, Janet S. Rader577, Bernhard Radlwimmer397, Petar Radovic284, Benjamin Raeder60, Keiran M. Raine49, Manasa Ramakrishna49, Kamna Ramakrishnan49, Suresh Ramalingam578, Benjamin J. Raphael579, W. Kimryn Rathmell580, Tobias Rausch60, Guido Reifenberger475, Jüri Reimand6,44, Jorge Reis-Filho348, Victor Reuter348, Iker Reyes-Salazar298, Matthew A. Reyna579, Sheila M. Reynolds36, Esther Rheinbay8,14,72, Yasser Riazalhosseini189, Andrea L. Richardson323, Julia Richter111,128, Matthew Ringel581, Markus Ringnér181, Yasushi Rino582, Karsten Rippe405, Jeffrey Roach583, Lewis R. Roberts349, Nicola D. Roberts49, Steven A. Roberts584, A. Gordon Robertson30, Alan J. Robertson113, Javier Bartolomé Rodriguez57, Bernardo Rodriguez-Martin104,105,106, F. Germán Rodríguez-González83,332, Michael H. A. Roehrl44,123,148,234,585,586, Marius Rohde587, Hirofumi Rokutan440, Gilles Romieu588, Ilse Rooman170, Tom Roques262, Daniel Rosebrock8, Mara Rosenberg8,72, Philip C. Rosenstiel589, Andreas Rosenwald590, Edward W. Rowe221,591, Romina Royo57, Steven G. Rozen179,180,592, Yulia Rubanova17,127, Mark A. Rubin423,593,594,595,596, Carlota Rubio-Perez298,299,597, Vasilisa A. Rudneva60, Borislav C. Rusev177, Andrea Ruzzenente598, Gunnar Rätsch276,277,278,279,280,430, Radhakrishnan Sabarinathan298,299,599, Veronica Y. Sabelnykova6, Sara Sadeghi30, S. Cenk Sahinalp62,78,79, Natalie Saini357, Mihoko Saito-Adachi440, Gordon Saksena8, Adriana Salcedo6, Roberto Salgado600, Leonidas Salichos5,19, Richard Sallari8, Charles Saller601, Roberto Salvia115, Michelle Sam272, Jaswinder S. Samra115,602, Francisco Sanchez-Vega114,121, Chris Sander276,603,604, Grant Sanders134, Rajiv Sarin605, Iman Sarrafi62,78, Aya Sasaki-Oku184, Torill Sauer489, Guido Sauter520, Robyn P. M. Saw211, Maria Scardoni167, Christopher J. Scarlett170,606, Aldo Scarpa177, Ghislaine Scelo194, Dirk Schadendorf68,607, Jacqueline E. Schein30, Markus B. Schilhabel589, Matthias Schlesner47,80, Thorsten Schlomm84,608, Heather K. Schmidt1 , Sarah-Jane Schramm246, Stefan Schreiber609, Nikolaus Schultz121, Steven E. Schumacher8,323, Roland F. Schwarz59,403,405,610, Richard A. Scolyer211,448,602, David Scott428, Ralph Scully611, Raja Seethala612, Ayellet V. Segre8,613, Iris Selander260, Colin A. Semple434, Yasin Senbabaoglu276, Subhajit Sengupta614, Elisabetta Sereni115, Stefano Serra585, Dennis C. Sgroi72, Mark Shackleton103, Nimish C. Shah352, Sagedeh Shahabi234, Catherine A. Shang329, Ping Shang211, Ofer Shapira8,323, Troy Shelton271, Ciyue Shen603,604, Hui Shen615, Rebecca Shepherd49, Ruian Shi490, Yan Shi134, Yu-Jia Shiah6, Tatsuhiro Shibata118,616, Juliann Shih8,82, Eigo Shimizu375, Kiyo Shimizu617, Seung Jun Shin618, Yuichi Shiraishi375, Tal Shmaya285, Ilya Shmulevich36, Solomon I. Shorser6, Charles Short59, Raunak Shrestha62, Suyash S. Shringarpure217, Craig Shriver619, Shimin Shuai6,126, Nikos Sidiropoulos83, Reiner Siebert112,620, Anieta M. Sieuwerts332, Lina Sieverling205,237, Sabina Signoretti202,621, Katarzyna O. Sikora177, Michele Simbolo138, Ronald Simon520, Janae V. Simons134, Jared T. Simpson6,17, Peter T. Simpson473, Samuel Singer115,458, Nasa Sinnott-Armstrong8,217, Payal Sipahimalani30, Tara J. Skelly390, Marcel Smid332, Jaclyn Smith622, Karen Smith-McCune514, Nicholas D. Socci276, Heidi J. Sofia27, Matthew G. Soloway134, Lei Song240, Anil K. Sood623,624,625, Sharmila Sothi626, Christos Sotiriou244, Cameron M. Soulette37, Paul N. Span627, Paul T. Spellman22, Nicola Sperandio177, Andrew J. Spillane211, Oliver Spiro8, Jonathan Spring628, Johan Staaf181, Peter F. Stadler163,164,165, Peter Staib629, Stefan G. Stark277,279,618,630, Lucy Stebbings49, Ólafur Andri Stefánsson631, Oliver Stegle59,60,632, Lincoln D. Stein6,126, Alasdair Stenhouse633, Chip Stewart8, Stephan Stilgenbauer634, Miranda D. Stobbe52,61, Michael R. Stratton49, Jonathan R. Stretch211, Adam J. Struck31, Joshua M. Stuart24,37, Henk G. Stunnenberg396,635, Hong Su56,396, Xiaoping Su99, Ren X. Sun6, Stephanie Sungalee60, Hana Susak52,53, Akihiro Suzuki89,636, Fred Sweep637, Monika Szczepanowski128, Holger Sültmann67,638, Takashi Yugawa617, Angela Tam30, David Tamborero298,299, Benita Kiat Tee Tan639, Donghui Tan518, Patrick Tan180,532,592,640, Hiroko Tanaka375, Hirokazu Taniguchi616, Tomas J. Tanskanen641, Maxime Tarabichi49,290, Roy Tarnuzzer220, Patrick Tarpey642, Morgan L. Taschuk152, Kenji Tatsuno89, Simon Tavaré223,643, Darrin F. Taylor113, Amaro Taylor-Weiner8, Jon W. Teague49, Bin Tean Teh180,592,640,644,645, Varsha Tembe246, Javier Temes104,105, Kevin Thai76, Sarah P. Thayer393, Nina Thiessen30, Gilles Thomas646, Sarah Thomas221, Alan Thompson221, Alastair M. Thompson633, John F. Thompson211, R. Houston Thompson647, Heather Thorne103, Leigh B. Thorne176, Adrian Thorogood424, Grace Tiao8, Nebojsa Tijanic284, Lee E. Timms272, Roberto Tirabosco648, Marta Tojo106, Stefania Tommasi649, Christopher W. Toon170, Umut H. Toprak48,650, David Torrents57,81, Giampaolo Tortora651,652, Jörg Tost653, Yasushi Totoki118, David Townend654, Nadia Traficante103, Isabelle Treilleux655,656, Jean-Rémi Trotta61, Lorenz H. P. Trümper469, Ming Tsao124,539, Tatsuhiko Tsunoda183,657,658,659, Jose M. C. Tubio104,105,106, Olga Tucker660, Richard Turkington661, Daniel J. Turner513, Andrew Tutt323, Masaki Ueno376, Naoto T. Ueno662, Christopher Umbricht151,213,663, Husen M. Umer305,664, Timothy J. Underwood665, Lara Urban59,60, Tomoko Urushidate616, Tetsuo Ushiku339, Liis Uusküla-Reimand666,667, Alfonso Valencia57,81, David J. Van Den Berg166, Steven Van Laere307, Peter Van Loo290,291, Erwin G. Van Meir668, Gert G. Van den Eynden307, Theodorus Van der Kwast123, Naveen Vasudev137, Miguel Vazquez57,669, Ravikiran Vedururu267, Umadevi Veluvolu518, Shankar Vembu490,670, Lieven P. C. Verbeke506,671, Peter Vermeulen307, Clare Verrill351,672, Alain Viari177, David Vicente57, Caterina Vicentini177, K. Vijay Raghavan365, Juris Viksna673, Ricardo E. Vilain674, Izar Villasante57, Anne Vincent-Salomon635, Tapio Visakorpi190, Douglas Voet8, Paresh Vyas311,351, Ignacio Vázquez-García49,86,675,676, Nick M. Waddell209, Nicola Waddell209,311, Claes Wadelius677, Lina Wadi6, Rabea Wagener111,112, Jeremiah A. Wala8,14,82, Jian Wang56, Jiayin Wang1,40,66, Linghua Wang12, Qi Wang465, Wenyi Wang21, Yumeng Wang21, Zhining Wang220, Paul M. Waring523, Hans-Jörg Warnatz483, Jonathan Warrell5,19, Anne Y. Warren352,678, Sebastian M. Waszak60, David C. Wedge49,294,679, Dieter Weichenhan345, Paul Weinberger680, John N. Weinstein38, Joachim Weischenfeldt60,83,84, Daniel J. Weisenberger166, Ian Welch681, Michael C. Wendl1,10,11, Johannes Werner47,85, Justin P. Whalley61,682, David A. Wheeler12,13, Hayley C. Whitaker117, Dennis Wigle683, Matthew D. Wilkerson518, Ashley Williams244, James S. Wilmott211, Gavin W. Wilson6,148, Julie M. Wilson148, Richard K. Wilson1,684, Boris Winterhoff685, Jeffrey A. Wintersinger17,127,384, Maciej Wiznerowicz686,687, Stephan Wolf688, Bernice H. Wong689, Tina Wong1,30, Winghing Wong690, Youngchoon Woo250, Scott Wood209,311, Bradly G. Wouters44, Adam J. Wright6, Derek W. Wright133,691, Mark H. Wright217, Chin-Lee Wu72, Dai-Ying Wu285, Guanming Wu692, Jianmin Wu170, Kui Wu56,396, Yang Wu179,180, Zhenggang Wu64, Liu Xi12, Tian Xia693, Qian Xiang76, Xiao Xiao66, Rui Xing497, Heng Xiong56,396, Qinying Xu209,311, Yanxun Xu694, Hong Xue64, Shinichi Yachida118,695, Sergei Yakneen60, Rui Yamaguchi375, Takafumi N. Yamaguchi6, Masakazu Yamamoto120, Shogo Yamamoto89, Hiroki Yamaue376, Fan Yang490, Huanming Yang56, Jean Y. Yang696, Liming Yang220, Lixing Yang697, Shanlin Yang306, Tsun-Po Yang270, Yang Yang369, Xiaotong Yao408,698, Marie-Laure Yaspo483, Lucy Yates49, Christina Yau156, Chen Ye56,396, Kai Ye40,41, Venkata D. Yellapantula20,86, Christopher J. Yoon249, Sung-Soo Yoon463, Fouad Yousif6, Jun Yu699, Kaixian Yu700, Willie Yu701, Yingyan Yu702, Ke Yuan223,510,703, Yuan Yuan21, Denis Yuen6, Takashi Yugawa617, Christina K. Yung76, Olga Zaikova704, Jorge Zamora49,104,105,106, Marc Zapatka397, Jean C. Zenklusen220, Thorsten Zenz67, Nikolajs Zeps705,706, Cheng-Zhong Zhang8,707, Fan Zhang381, Hailei Zhang8, Hongwei Zhang494, Hongxin Zhang121, Jiashan Zhang220, Jing Zhang5, Junjun Zhang76, Xiuqing Zhang56, Xuanping Zhang66,369, Yan Zhang5,708,709, Zemin Zhang381,710, Zhongming Zhao711, Liangtao Zheng381, Xiuqing Zheng381, Wanding Zhou615, Yong Zhou56, Bin Zhu240, Hongtu Zhu700,712, Jingchun Zhu24, Shida Zhu56,396, Lihua Zou713, Xueqing Zou49, Anna deFazio246,247,714, Nicholas van As221, Carolien H. M. van Deurzen715, Marc J. van de Vijver523, L. van’t Veer716 & Christian von Mering433,717, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that ~80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAF < 15%) and clonal heterogeneity contribute up to 68% of private WGS mutations and 71% of private WES mutations. We observe that ~30% of private WGS mutations trace to mutations identified by a single variant caller in WES consensus efforts. WGS captures both ~50% more variation in exonic regions and un-observed mutations in loci with variable GC-content. Together, our analysis highlights technological divergences between two reproducible somatic variant detection efforts.

IntroductionSystemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and intensification with agents such as docetaxel, abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide has resulted in improved overall survival in men with de novo synchronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Novel local cytoreductive treatments and metastasis-directed therapy are now being evaluated. Such interventions may provide added survival benefit or delay the requirement for further systemic agents and associated toxicity but can confer additional harm. Understanding men’s preferences for treatment options in this disease state is crucial for patients, clinicians, carers and future healthcare service providers.MethodsUsing a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment (DCE), we aim to determine the attributes associated with treatment that are most important to men with mHSPC. Furthermore, we plan to determine men’s preferences for, and trade-offs between, the attributes (survival and side effects) of different treatment options including systemic therapy, local cytoreductive approaches (external beam radiotherapy, cytoreductive radical prostatectomy or minimally invasive ablative therapy) and metastases-directed therapies (metastasectomy or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy). All men with newly diagnosed mHSPC within 4 months of commencing ADT and WHO performance status 0–2 are eligible. Men who have previously consented to a cytoreductive treatment or have developed castrate-resistant disease will be excluded. This study includes a qualitative analysis component, with patients (n=15) and healthcare professionals (n=5), to identify and define the key attributes associated with treatment options that would warrant trade-off evaluation in a DCE. The main phase component planned recruitment is 300 patients over 1 year, commencing in January 2021, with planned study completion in March 2022.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Health Research Authority East of England, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/EE/0194). Project information will be reported on the publicly available Imperial College London website and the Heath Economics Research Unit (HERU website including the HERU Blog). We will use the social media accounts of IP5-MATTER, Imperial Prostate London, HERU and the individual researchers to disseminate key findings following publication. Findings from the study will be presented at national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Authorship policy will follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.Trial registration numberNCT04590976.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein)., Background: Mutations in BRCA2 cause a higher risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating targeted PrCa screening using prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) in men with germline BRCA1/2 mutations. Objective: To report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3 yr of screening, by BRCA status. Design, setting, and participants: Men aged 40–69 yr with a germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation and male controls testing negative for a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were recruited. Participants underwent PSA screening for 3 yr, and if PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, men were offered prostate biopsy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: PSA levels, PrCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. Statistical analyses included Poisson regression offset by person-year follow-up, chi-square tests for proportion t tests for means, and Kruskal-Wallis for medians. Results and limitations: A total of 3027 patients (2932 unique individuals) were recruited (919 BRCA1 carriers, 709 BRCA1 noncarriers, 902 BRCA2 carriers, and 497 BRCA2 noncarriers). After 3 yr of screening, 527 men had PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 357 biopsies were performed, and 112 PrCa cases were diagnosed (31 BRCA1 carriers, 19 BRCA1 noncarriers, 47 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 BRCA2 noncarriers). Higher compliance with biopsy was observed in BRCA2 carriers compared with noncarriers (73% vs 60%). Cancer incidence rate per 1000 person years was higher in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (19.4 vs 12.0; p = 0.03); BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed at a younger age (61 vs 64 yr; p = 0.04) and were more likely to have clinically significant disease than BRCA2 noncarriers (77% vs 40%; p = 0.01). No differences in age or tumour characteristics were detected between BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 noncarriers. The 4 kallikrein marker model discriminated better (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73) for clinically significant cancer at biopsy than PSA alone (AUC = 0.65). Conclusions: After 3 yr of screening, compared with noncarriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers were associated with a higher incidence of PrCa, younger age of diagnosis, and clinically significant tumours. Therefore, systematic PSA screening is indicated for men with a BRCA2 mutation. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Patient summary: We demonstrate that after 3 yr of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, we detect more serious prostate cancers in men with BRCA2 mutations than in those without these mutations. We recommend that male BRCA2 carriers are offered systematic PSA screening. © 2019 The Authors We demonstrate that after 3 yr of prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) testing, we detect more serious prostate cancers in men with BRCA2 mutations than those without these mutations. We recommend that male BRCA2 carriers are offered systematic PSA screening., We demonstrate that, after four annual PSA screening rounds, BRCA2 mutation carriers have a higher incidence of PrCa, are diagnosed at a younger age, and present with more clinically significant tumours than BRCA2 noncarriers. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers. Therefore, these data support the use of systematic PSA screening in male BRCA2 carriers. Author contributions : Rosalind A. Eeles had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design : Aaronson, Ardern-Jones, Bancroft, Bangma, Castro, Dearnaley, Eccles, Evans, Eyfjord, Falconer, Foster, Gronberg, Hamdy, Johannsson, Khoo, Kote-Jarai, Lilja, Lindeman, Lubinski, Mahle, Mikropoulos, Mitra, Moynihan, Page, Rennert, Suri. Acquisition of data: All authors. Analysis and interpretation of data: All authors. Drafting of the manuscript: All authors. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis : Page, Bancroft, Brook, Assel, Vickers, Lilja. Obtaining funding : Eeles and all IMPACT collaborating sites obtained their own funding for running the study at their site. Administrative, technical, or material support: All authors. Supervision: Eeles. Other : None. Financial disclosures: Rosalind A. Eeles certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Hans Lilja holds patents for intact PSA assays, and is named, along with Andrew J. Vickers, on a patent application for a statistical method to detect prostate cancer. The patents have been licensed and commercialised as the 4 Kscore by OPKO Health. Drs. Vickers and Lilja receive royalties from sales of this test. Additionally, Dr. Lilja owns stock and Dr. Vickers owns stock options in OPKO. Professor Rosalind Eeles: Royal Marsden Hospital—Nov 2017; support from Janssen; honorarium as speaker £1100; University of Chicago invited talk May 2018; honorarium as speaker Rosalind A. Eeles certifies that all conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (eg, employment/affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, or patents filed, received, or pending), are the following: Hans Lilja holds patents for intact PSA assays, and is named, along with Andrew J. Vickers, on a patent application for a statistical method to detect prostate cancer. The patents have been licensed and commercialised as the 4 Kscore by OPKO Health. Drs. Vickers and Lilja receive royalties from sales of this test. Additionally, Dr. Lilja owns stock and Dr. Vickers owns stock options in OPKO. Professor Rosalind Eeles: Royal Marsden Hospital—Nov 2017; support from Janssen; honorarium as speaker £1100; University of Chicago invited talk May 2018; honorarium as speaker $1000. The remaining authors have no other conflict of interest to declare.000. The remaining authors have no other conflict of interest to declare. Funding/Support and role of the sponsor : This research is coordinated by the Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK, and is supported by grants from Cancer Research UK (grant references C5047/A21332, C5047/A13232, and C5047/A17528) and the Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation. Judith Offman is supported by Cancer Research UK Programme Grant reference C8161/A16892. Mr. and Mrs. Jack Baker are acknowledged for supporting the study in NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA and Myriad Genetics Laboratory, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, for providing research BRCA testing rates for NorthShore University HealthSystem patients. We acknowledge funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to the Biomedical Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, at Manchester University Foundation Trust (IS-BRC-1215-20007), the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre Program, and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. We acknowledge that in Australia, this project was cofunded by Cancer Council Tasmania and Cancer Australia (grant number 1006349 [2011–2013]), Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (grant number PCFA PRO4 [2008]), Cancer Councils of Victoria and South Australia (grant number 400048 [2006–2008]), the Victorian Cancer Agency Clinical Trial Capacity CTCB08_14, Cancer Australia and Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (2014–2016; grant number 1059423), and Translational grants EOI09_50. The Association of International Cancer Research funded data collection in The Netherlands (AICR 10-0596). We acknowledge funding from the Basser Center for BRCA (to Susan Domchek). This work was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (NIH/NCI) with a Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (P30 CA008748), a SPORE grant in Prostate Cancer to Dr. H. Scher (P50-CA92629), the Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, David H. Koch through the Prostate Cancer Foundation. This work was also supported in part by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre Program in UK, the Swedish Cancer Society (CAN 2017/559), the Swedish Research Council (VR-MH project no. 2016-02974), and General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer. We acknowledge funding from the Slovenian Research Agency, Research programme P3-0352. We thank CERCA Program/Generalitat de Catalunya for their institutional support. Elena Castro acknowledges funding from Prostate Cancer Foundation. We acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad), “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI16/00563, JR18/00011 and CIBERONC), and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338 and PERIS Project MedPerCan). We acknowledge funding support from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia to the IPO Porto study (project grant PTDC/DTP-PIC/1308/2014 to Manuel R. Teixeira and fellowship grant SFRH/BD/116557/2016 to Marta Cardoso).

ObjectiveTo describe how clinicians conceptualised equipoise in the PART (Partial prostate Ablation vs Radical prosTatectomy in intermediate‐risk unilateral clinically localised prostate cancer) feasibility study and how this affected recruitment.Subjects and MethodsPART included a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment. Phase I aimed to understand recruitment, and included: scrutinising recruitment data, interviewing the trial management group and recruiters (n = 13), and audio‐recording recruitment consultations (n = 64). Data were analysed using qualitative content and thematic analysis methods. In Phase II, strategies to improve recruitment were developed and delivered. ResultsInitially many recruiters found it difficult to maintain a position of equipoise and held preconceptions about which treatment was best for particular patients. They did not feel comfortable about approaching all eligible patients, and when the study was discussed, biases were conveyed through the use of terminology, poorly balanced information, and direct treatment recommendations. Individual and group feedback led to presentations to patients becoming clearer and enabled recruiters to reconsider their sense of equipoise. Although the precise impact of the QRI alone cannot be determined, recruitment increased (from a mean [range] of 1.4 [0–4] to 4.5 [0–12] patients/month) and the feasibility study reached its recruitment target.ConclusionAlthough clinicians find it challenging to recruit patients to a trial comparing different contemporary treatments for prostate cancer, training and support can enable recruiters to become more comfortable with conveying equipoise and providing clearer information to patients.

OBJECTIVES: To describe our preliminary experience in establishing an MRI suite capable to deliver targeted prostate biopsy and cryoablation. METHODS: This article includes a description of the necessary infrastructure alterations, scanning sequence suggestions, anaesthetic advice, and practical procedural considerations. We aim to examine the anticipated issues most UK centres would encounter and offer our experience in overcoming them. During this process we will also explore some of the technical aspects of MRI-guided prostate biopsy and cryoablation. RESULTS: The clinical indication, treatment rationale, intervention strategy, and initial clinical outcomes are described for our first series of patients. CONCLUSION: MRI-guided prostate intervention provides many theoretical advantages over traditional TRUS guidance. This article demonstrates some of the complexities encountered in establishing this technique in a UK centre, and the proposed solutions. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article gives an account of establishing the first MRI intervention suite in the UK. It demonstrates some of the logistical considerations, and offers the unit’s early experience.

To compare the incidence of infective complications after transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy with either empirical fluoroquinolone or culture-based targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis, and the prevalence of fluoroquinolone resistance (FQ-R) in men undergoing prostate biopsy. A systematic review of the literature was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We included studies of patients undergoing TRUS-guided biopsy that compared infective outcomes of those who received targeted antimicrobial therapy based on the results of pre-procedural rectal swab cultures, with those receiving empiric fluoroquinolone antimicrobial prophylaxis. The prevalence of FQ-R was recorded as a secondary outcome measure. Studies with no control group were excluded. From 125 studies screened, nine studies (4 571 patients) met the inclusion criteria. All studies were of cohort design, and included a combination of retrospective and prospective data. Six studies included were undertaken in North America. The remaining studies were undertaken in Spain, Turkey and Columbia. Within these studies, 2 484 (54.3%) patients received empirical fluoroquinolone prophylaxis, whilst 2 087 (45.7%) patients had pre-biopsy rectal swabs and targeted antibiotics. The mean FQ-R was 22.8%. Post-biopsy infection and sepsis rates were significantly higher in groups given empirical prophylaxis (4.55% and 2.21%) compared with groups receiving targeted antibiotics (0.72% and 0.48%). Based on these results 27 men would need to receive targeted antibiotics to prevent one infective complication. Our systematic review suggests that targeted prophylactic antimicrobial therapy before TRUS-guided prostate biopsy is associated with lower rates of sepsis. We therefore recommend changing current pathways to adopt this measure.

Background Men with suspected prostate cancer usually undergo transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. TRUS-guided biopsy can cause side effects and has relatively poor diagnostic accuracy. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) used as a triage test might allow men to avoid unnecessary TRUS-guided biopsy and improve diagnostic accuracy. Objectives To (1) assess the ability of mpMRI to identify men who can safely avoid unnecessary biopsy, (2) assess the ability of the mpMRI-based pathway to improve the rate of detection of clinically significant (CS) cancer compared with TRUS-guided biopsy and (3) estimate the cost-effectiveness of a mpMRI-based diagnostic pathway. Design A validating paired-cohort study and an economic evaluation using a decision-analytic model. Setting Eleven NHS hospitals in England. Participants Men at risk of prostate cancer undergoing a first prostate biopsy. Interventions Participants underwent three tests: (1) mpMRI (the index test), (2) TRUS-guided biopsy (the current standard) and (3) template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy (the reference test). Main outcome measures Diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI, TRUS-guided biopsy and TPM-biopsy measured by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) using primary and secondary definitions of CS cancer. The percentage of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans was used to identify men who might be able to avoid biopsy. Results Diagnostic study – a total of 740 men were registered and 576 underwent all three tests. According to TPM-biopsy, the prevalence of any cancer was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 67% to 75%]. The prevalence of CS cancer according to the primary definition (a Gleason score of ≥ 4 + 3 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 6 mm) was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%). For CS cancer, TRUS-guided biopsy showed a sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 42% to 55%), specificity of 96% (95% CI 94% to 98%), PPV of 90% (95% CI 83% to 94%) and NPV of 74% (95% CI 69% to 78%). The sensitivity of mpMRI was 93% (95% CI 88% to 96%), specificity was 41% (95% CI 36% to 46%), PPV was 51% (95% CI 46% to 56%) and NPV was 89% (95% CI 83% to 94%). A negative mpMRI scan was recorded for 158 men (27%). Of these, 17 were found to have CS cancer on TPM-biopsy. Economic evaluation – the most cost-effective strategy involved testing all men with mpMRI, followed by MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy in those patients with suspected CS cancer, followed by rebiopsy if CS cancer was not detected. This strategy is cost-effective at the TRUS-guided biopsy definition 2 (any Gleason pattern of ≥ 4 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 4 mm), mpMRI definition 2 (lesion volume of ≥ 0.2 ml and/or Gleason score of ≥ 3 + 4) and cut-off point 2 (likely to be benign) and detects 95% (95% CI 92% to 98%) of CS cancers. The main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the unit costs of tests, the improvement in sensitivity of MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy compared with blind TRUS-guided biopsy and the longer-term costs and outcomes of men with cancer. Limitations The PROstate Magnetic resonance Imaging Study (PROMIS) was carried out in a selected group and excluded men with a prostate volume of > 100 ml, who are less likely to have cancer. The limitations in the economic modelling arise from the limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of men with prostate cancer and on the sensitivity of MRI-targeted repeat biopsy. Conclusions Incorporating mpMRI into the diagnostic pathway as an initial test prior to prostate biopsy may (1) reduce the proportion of men having unnecessary biopsies, (2) improve the detection of CS prostate cancer and (3) increase the cost-effectiveness of the prostate cancer diagnostic and therapeutic pathway. The PROMIS data set will be used for future research; this is likely to include modelling prognostic factors for CS cancer, optimising MRI scan sequencing and biomarker or translational research analyses using the blood and urine samples collected. Better-quality evidence on long-term outcomes in prostate cancer under the various management strategies is required to better assess cost-effectiveness. The value-of-information analysis should be developed further to assess new research to commission. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16082556 and NCT01292291. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This project was also supported and partially funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London (UCL) Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and UCL and by The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and was co-ordinated by the Medical Research Council’s Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (grant code MC_UU_12023/28). It was sponsored by UCL. Funding for the additional collection of blood and urine samples for translational research was provided by Prostate Cancer UK.

Prostate cancer represents a substantial clinical challenge because it is difficult to predict outcome and advanced disease is often fatal. We sequenced the whole genomes of 112 primary and metastatic prostate cancer samples. From joint analysis of these cancers with those from previous studies (930 cancers in total), we found evidence for 22 previously unidentified putative driver genes harboring coding mutations, as well as evidence for NEAT1 and FOXA1 acting as drivers through noncoding mutations. Through the temporal dissection of aberrations, we identified driver mutations specifically associated with steps in the progression of prostate cancer, establishing, for example, loss of CHD1 and BRCA2 as early events in cancer development of ETS fusion-negative cancers. Computational chemogenomic (canSAR) analysis of prostate cancer mutations identified 11 targets of approved drugs, 7 targets of investigational drugs, and 62 targets of compounds that may be active and should be considered candidates for future clinical trials. Postprint

Objective To determine the scope and outcomes of nephron-sparing surgery (NSS), i.e. partial nephrectomy, across the UK and in so doing set a realistic benchmark and identify fresh contemporary challenges in NSS. Patients and Methods In 2012 reporting of outcomes of all types of nephrectomy became mandatory in the UK. In all, 148 surgeons in 86 centres prospectively entered data on 6 042 nephrectomies undertaken in 2012. This study is a retrospective analysis of the NSS procedures in the dataset. Results A total of 1 044 NSS procedures were recorded and the median (range) surgical volume was 4 (1-39) per consultant and 8 (1-59) per centre. In all, 36 surgeons and 10 centres reported on only one NSS. The indications for NSS were: elective with a tumour of ≤4.5 cm in 59%, elective with a tumour of >4.5 cm in 10%, relative in 7%, imperative in 12%, Von Hippel-Lindau in 1%, and unknown in 11%. The median (range) tumour size was 3.4 (0.8-30) cm. The technique used was minimally invasive surgery in 42%, open in 58%, with conversions in 4%. The histology results were: malignant in 80%, benign in 18%, and unknown in 2%. In patients aged

Design: A study comparing less-invasive partial ablation (PA) of the prostate with standard total ablative surgery in the form of radical prostatectomy (RP). The study will be conducted in two phases: Phase 1, a feasibility phase (HTA funding already secured) followed by Phase 2, the main recruitment phase. Currently funding is secured for Phase 1 of the PART study only. Setting: Phase 1: Four large Urology departments at Oxford, Sheffield, Bristol and UCLH with the appropriate skill mix. Target Population: Men with localised prostate cancer amenable to PA of the prostate or RP. Inclusion Criteria: Men with unilateral clinically significant intermediate risk prostate cancer or dominant unilateral clinically significant intermediate risk & small contralateral low-risk disease: - Gleason grade score 7 (3+4 or 4+3) - High volume Gleason grade score 6 (> 4mm cancer core length) - PSA = 20 ng/ml - = T2b disease Life expectancy of =10 years Fit, eligible and normally destined for radical surgery No concomitant cancer No previous treatment of their prostate cancer An understanding of the English language sufficient to understand written and verbal information about the trial, its consent process and the study questionnaires Health Technology Being Assessed Phase 1 of the PART study will assess the feasibility of identifying and randomising men with unilateral intermediate risk CaP to a RCT comparing RP with PA using minimally invasive technology. Phase 1 will also assess the treatment effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of total surgical versus partial prostate ablation using High Intensity Focal Ultrasound (HIFU). HIFU is a rapidly evolving technology currently being introduced and taken up widely across the NHS without robust evidence about their utility or effectiveness. The aim of PA is to target and treat only the part of the gland harbouring significant cancer. This should minimize morbidity by reducing the principal adverse surgical sequelae of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. Whilst evidence exists from non-randomised Phase I and II trials, these technologies are untested in intermediate risk disease in the context of comparative RCTs. NICE recommends that minimally ablative techniques should only be used with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent and audit or research. The findings of the HTA systematic review 10/136/01: Ablative therapy for men with localised CaP, which is due to publish shortly, conclude that the role of focal therapies in the management of men with localised CaP should be investigated. It may be desirable to incorporate the focal approach into a multicentre RCT, with long-term follow-up and would include predefined assessment of cancer-specific, dysfunction and health-related quality of life measures. Our hypothesis is that a significant proportion of these patients would benefit from focal therapy with minimally invasive rather than radical procedures, with less morbidity, improved QoL, and reduced cost without compromising treatment effectiveness. If this can be established, ablative procedures could eventually replace conventional radical treatments in suitable patients and reduce the burden of treating the disease for the patients and the NHS. Selection of Outcome Measures The most relevant outcome for comparing PA with RP is CaP mortality. We know from previous studies that the benefits of RP compared to active monitoring appear modest and take at least 10 years to emerge. Further data on disease-specific mortality following conventional treatment options will be available when we report our ProtecT study primary outcome at 10-year median follow-up. So, given that differences between partial and radical procedures are likely to be smaller, this would require a 15 or 20-year study including several thousand patients for reliable results. Though such a study would be desirable, our current proposal is for an 18 month feasibility study, which, if successful, may progress to a 5-year study (Phase 2) addressing the key short-term unknowns that will provide important new information to assist patients and health care providers make informed decisions on the complex benefits and risks of partial compared to radical surgery. Selection of Comparator We have selected RP as the comparator for a number of reasons: firstly, evidence to date suggests no significant differences in oncological outcomes between radical treatment options; secondly, surgery will allow careful pathological staging to be performed in the radical arm, which with randomisation should mirror the composition of the minimally intervention cohort; thirdly, criteria of treatment failure are easy to apply following surgery; fourthly, secondary treatment after failure (adjuvant radiotherapy) will be the same in both arms. Measurement of Costs and Outcomes PHASE 1: Primary Objective - Testing the feasibility of a randomised trial of PA using energy-delivery based technologies versus RP (surgical comparator) for intermediate risk unilateral prostate cancer. Primary Outcome measures - Randomisation of 100 participants within the proposed timelines - Uptake of consent & randomisation of =50% among invited, eligible patients. Secondary Objectives - Qualitative Recruitment Investigation (QRI) to understand recruitment challenges for this trial and inform optimal recruitment strategies for Phase 2 of the PART study. - To collect data on quality of life and resource usage and inform power calculations for Phase 2 of the PART study. - To explore methods and feasibility of data capture instruments to inform power calculations and health economic evaluation for Phase 2 of the PART study. Secondary Outcome measure - Findings of the Qualitative Recruitment Investigation (QRI). PHASE 2: Primary Objective - To compare treatment failure rates between the two treatment groups. Primary Outcome measure - Primary treatment failure as demonstrated by the need for whole gland ablation and/or secondary radiotherapy Secondary Objectives - To compare the short, medium and long-term effects of both treatment arms - The effect on Quality of Life and Health Resource Utilisation of both treatment arms - The role of imaging by mpMRI and biopsy protocols in determining suitability of patients for focal therapy Secondary Outcome measures - Short, medium and long-term?adverse events related to treatments - Disease progression including development of metastases - Disease-specific and all-cause mortality - Quality of life using conventional questionnaires (IIEF-15, IPSS, EQ-5D-5L, FACT-P, UCLA-EPIC) - The role of imaging by mpMRI and biopsy protocols in determining the suitability of patients for focal therapy using data collected in the CRF. Sample Size/Project Timetable Phase 1: 18-month feasibility phase aiming to achieve a minimum 50% randomization with an estimated 100 men recruited in 4 centres starting in January 2015.

A variety of models have been proposed to explain regions of recurrent somatic copy number alteration (SCNA) in human cancer. Our study employs Whole Genome DNA Sequence (WGS) data from tumor samples (n = 103) to comprehensively assess the role of the Knudson two hit genetic model in SCNA generation in prostate cancer. 64 recurrent regions of loss and gain were detected, of which 28 were novel, including regions of loss with more than 15% frequency at Chr4p15.2-p15.1 (15.53%), Chr6q27 (16.50%) and Chr18q12.3 (17.48%). Comprehensive mutation screens of genes, lincRNA encoding sequences, control regions and conserved domains within SCNAs demonstrated that a two-hit genetic model was supported in only a minor proportion of recurrent SCNA losses examined (15/40). We found that recurrent breakpoints and regions of inversion often occur within Knudson model SCNAs, leading to the identification of ZNF292 as a target gene for the deletion at 6q14.3-q15 and NKX3.1 as a two-hit target at 8p21.3-p21.2. The importance of alterations of lincRNA sequences was illustrated by the identification of a novel mutational hotspot at the KCCAT42, FENDRR, CAT1886 and STCAT2 loci at the 16q23.1-q24.3 loss. Our data confirm that the burden of SCNAs is predictive of biochemical recurrence, define nine individual regions that are associated with relapse, and highlight the possible importance of ion channel and G-protein coupled-receptor (GPCR) pathways in cancer development. We concluded that a two-hit genetic model accounts for about one third of SCNA indicating that mechanisms, such haploinsufficiency and epigenetic inactivation, account for the remaining SCNA losses., Author summary Cancer is a genetic disease where changes in DNA cause alterations in the control of cellular systems leading to unchecked growth. Copy number changes, including duplications, amplifications, and deletions, are a common type of DNA change observed in cancer cells but it is not always clear which of the changes are important in driving cancer development. We have examined this class of genetic alteration in prostate cancer by DNA sequencing the whole genome in 103 cancers. 64 recurrent copy number changes were detected, of which 28 were new. For genetic losses our study comprehensively assessed the role of a model called the “Knudson two-hit genetic model” where alterations in both alleles of a gene is required to generate functional alterations. This model was only supported a minor proportion of recurrent deletions (15/40). This observation indicates that other mechanisms, such haploinsufficiency and epigenetic inactivation, may account for the majority of deletions. Our studies highlight several novel changes including those in non-coding lincRNA sequences, the identification ZNF292 as a target gene for a recurrent deletion on chromosome 6, and the common Knudson deletions at the NKX3.1 loci on chromosome 8.

Clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) is currently treated using whole-gland therapy. This approach is effective but can have urinary, sexual, and rectal side effects.To report on 5-yr PCa control following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy to treat individual areas of cancer within the prostate.This was a prospective study of 625 consecutive patients with nonmetastatic clinically significant PCa undergoing focal HIFU therapy (Sonablate) in secondary care centres between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2015. A minimum of 6-mo follow-up was available for599 patients. Intermediate- or high-risk PCa was found in 505 patients (84%).Disease was localised using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) combined with targeted and systematic biopsies, or transperineal mapping biopsies. Areas of significant disease were treated. Follow-up included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement, mpMRI, and biopsies.The primary endpoint, failure-free survival (FFS), was defined as freedom from radical or systemic therapy, metastases, and cancer-specific mortality.The median follow-up was 56 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 35-70). The median age was 65 yr (IQR 61-71) and median preoperative PSA was 7.2 ng/ml (IQR 5.2-10.0). FFS was 99% (95% confidence interval [CI] 98-100%) at 1 yr, 92% (95% CI 90-95%) at 3 yr, and 88% (95% 85-91%) at 5 yr. For the whole patient cohort, metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survival at 5 yr was 98% (95% CI 97-99%), 100%, and 99% (95% CI 97-100%), respectively. Among patients who returned validated questionnaires, 241/247 (98%) achieved complete pad-free urinary continence and none required more than 1 pad/d. Limitations include the lack of long-term follow-up.Focal therapy for select patients with clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer is effective in the medium term and has a low probability of side effects.In this multicentre study of 625 patients undergoing focal therapy using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), failure-free survival, metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were 88%, 98%, 100%, and 99%, respectively. Urinary incontinence (any pad use) was 2%. Focal HIFU therapy for patients with clinically significant prostate cancer that has not spread has a low probability of side effects and is effective at 5 yr.

Ionizing radiation is a potent carcinogen, inducing cancer through DNA damage. The signatures of mutations arising in human tissues following in vivo exposure to ionizing radiation have not been documented. Here, we searched for signatures of ionizing radiation in 12 radiation-associated second malignancies of different tumour types. Two signatures of somatic mutation characterize ionizing radiation exposure irrespective of tumour type. Compared with 319 radiation-naive tumours, radiation-associated tumours carry a median extra 201 deletions genome-wide, sized 1–100 base pairs often with microhomology at the junction. Unlike deletions of radiation-naive tumours, these show no variation in density across the genome or correlation with sequence context, replication timing or chromatin structure. Furthermore, we observe a significant increase in balanced inversions in radiation-associated tumours. Both small deletions and inversions generate driver mutations. Thus, ionizing radiation generates distinctive mutational signatures that explain its carcinogenic potential., Ionizing radiation may induce irreparable DNA damage leading to cancer. Here, the authors identify a specific signature of mutations arising in patients exposed to ionizing radiation and suggest that radiation-induced tumorigenesis is associated with higher rates of genome-wide deletions and balanced inversions.

Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in males in developed countries. To identify common prostate cancer susceptibility alleles, we genotyped 211,155 SNPs on a custom Illumina array (iCOGS) in blood DNA from 25,074 prostate cancer cases and 24,272 controls from the international PRACTICAL Consortium. Twenty-three new prostate cancer susceptibility loci were identified at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10(-8)). More than 70 prostate cancer susceptibility loci, explaining ∼30% of the familial risk for this disease, have now been identified. On the basis of combined risks conferred by the new and previously known risk loci, the top 1% of the risk distribution has a 4.7-fold higher risk than the average of the population being profiled. These results will facilitate population risk stratification for clinical studies.

We present a case of human herpes virus 8 (HHV8)-associated Kaposi sarcoma (KS) occurring in a renal allograft ureter from a male donor. The female patient presented with a rising creatinine due to ureteric obstruction, and subsequent histological examination of the excised tumor revealed a KS. The tumor tested positive for HHV8 antigen and, using in situ hybridization to identify X and Y chromosomes, we were able to demonstrate that the tumor was of male origin. In the absence of any other KS lesions, this suggested that the tumor arose due to reactivation of latent HHV8 in the donor tissue, permitted by the recipient's immunosuppression. The patient was managed by a gradual reduction in immunosuppression and there has been no subsequent recurrence of the tumor. KS in renal transplantation is discussed in detail including the possible utility of pre-transplant HHV8 screening.

© 2015 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved.Genome-wide DNA sequencing was used to decrypt the phylogeny of multiple samples from distinct areas of cancer and morphologically normal tissue taken from the prostates of three men. Mutations were present at high levels in morphologically normal tissue distant from the cancer, reflecting clonal expansions, and the underlying mutational processes at work in morphologically normal tissue were also at work in cancer. Our observations demonstrate the existence of ongoing abnormal mutational processes, consistent with field effects, underlying carcinogenesis. This mechanism gives rise to extensive branching evolution and cancer clone mixing, as exemplified by the coexistence of multiple cancer lineages harboring distinct ERG fusions within a single cancer nodule. Subsets of mutations were shared either by morphologically normal and malignant tissues or between different ERG lineages, indicating earlier or separate clonal cell expansions. Our observations inform on the origin of multifocal disease and have implications for prostate cancer therapy in individual cases.

To describe and assess the evolution of an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) for open radical cystectomy.We introduced a mentored ERP for radical cystectomy in January 2011. The programme underwent service evaluation and multiple changes in August 2012 that we define as marginal gains. We present a retrospective review of 133 consecutive patients undergoing open radical cystectomy, grouped according to the three stages of the ERP from October 2008 to April 2013: (1) non-ERP group (October 2008 to December 2010): n = 69; (2) ERP-1 group (January 2011 to July 2012): n = 37; and (3) ERP-2 group (August 2012 to April 2013): n = 27. Primary outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission, morbidity at 90 days using the Clavien classification system and mortality. Secondary outcomes were time to flatus, ileus rates, re-operation rates and oncological outcomes.There were no differences in patient demographics among any of the groups for: age, gender, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. There were no differences in readmission, morbidity and mortality rates. The overall 90-day mortality was six patients (4.5%). There were significant differences in ileus rates between the non-ERP, the ERP-1 and the ERP-2 groups: 44.9% (31 patients), 29.7% (11 patients) and 14.8% (four patients), respectively (P = 0.017). There was a significant difference in the presence of pathological lymphadenopathy in the ERP-2 group: non-ERP group, 10.1%; ERP-1 group, 16.2%; and ERP-2 group, 44.4%; P = 0.002. There was also a difference in the mean (sd) lymph node yield in ERP-2: non-ERP group, 8.4 (5.4) nodes; ERP-1, 8.2 (6.4) nodes; and ERP-2, 16.7 (5.4) nodes (P0.001). The median (range) LOS was 14 (7-91) days, 10 (6-55) days and 7 (3-99) days in the non-ERP, ERP-1 and ERP-2 groups, respectively (P0.001).Auditing an already successful ERP and implementing a number of marginal gains has led to a significant decrease in the median LOS for radical cystectomy. The LOS for open radical cystectomy at University Hospital Southampton has halved. In the second phase of our ERP, our median LOS is 7 days.

Scrotal lymphedema (scrotal elephantiasis) is uncommon outside of filariasis endemic regions. We present a case of a 65-year-old with idiopathic lymphedema of the scrotum and functional impairment of the penis. The patient underwent surgical excision of the edematous subcutaneous tissues and plastic reconstruction of his penis and scrotum. Three years later, the patient showed no signs of local recurrence, had complete restoration of urinary and sexual function and was extremely satisfied with the result. Surgical management was an effective strategy in the management of scrotal lymphedema in this case.

Although many anecdotal opinions are available that water gives a better visual quality, no studies have analysed the differences in the visual quality of the operative field with the use of either saline or sterile water. As part of a prospective audit we wished to assess the effect of differing irrigant fluids on intraoperative visibility during Greenlight photoselective vapourization of prostate (PVP). Twenty-nine consecutive patients with prostates less than 100 cm(3) who underwent PVP were studied. The irrigation fluid used was randomly connected on a bag-by-bag basis, with the surgeon blinded to the bag's contents. Towards the end of each bag the surgeon gave a score to the quality of vision. All surgeons were familiarized with the vision scoring system in advance. The scores were analysed in two ways. The mean scores for water and saline were compared. In addition, a mean score for each fluid in each patient where both fluids were used (n=24) was separately calculated and the means for each fluid compared. One hundred and twenty-four bags of fluid in 29 operative cases were analysed. The mean overall vision scores were 3.94% for saline and 4.01% for water (P=0.62). The paired data were analysed using the Student's t-test and there was no statistically significant difference (P=0.34). We showed no significant difference in visual quality between water and saline during PVP. Although fluid absorption is almost unknown with PVP, there seems to be no justification for using water irrigation if saline is available, particularly with a theoretical risk of absorption.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified multiple common genetic variants associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (PrCa), but these explain less than one-third of the heritability. To identify further susceptibility alleles, we conducted a meta-analysis of four GWAS including 5953 cases of aggressive PrCa and 11 463 controls (men without PrCa). We computed association tests for approximately 2.6 million SNPs and followed up the most significant SNPs by genotyping 49 121 samples in 29 studies through the international PRACTICAL and BPC3 consortia. We not only confirmed the association of a PrCa susceptibility locus, rs11672691 on chromosome 19, but also showed an association with aggressive PrCa [odds ratio = 1.12 (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.21), P = 1.4 × 10(-8)]. This report describes a genetic variant which is associated with aggressive PrCa, which is a type of PrCa associated with a poorer prognosis.

One third of non-Hodgkin lymphomas are extranodal, however it is uncommon for the lower urinary tract to be involved. We present an unusual case of a low-grade primary lymphoma affecting the prostate, which responded well to radical radiotherapy.

Background Urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer detection are constrained by inadequate sensitivity or specificity. Here we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Mcm5, a novel cell cycle biomarker of aberrant growth, alone and in combination with NMP22. Methods 1677 consecutive patients under investigation for urinary tract malignancy were recruited to a prospective blinded observational study. All patients underwent ultrasound, intravenous urography, cystoscopy, urine culture and cytologic analysis. An immunofluorometric assay was used to measure Mcm5 levels in urine cell sediments. NMP22 urinary levels were determined with the FDA-approved NMP22® Test Kit. Results Genito-urinary tract cancers were identified in 210/1564 (13%) patients with an Mcm5 result and in 195/1396 (14%) patients with an NMP22 result. At the assay cut-point where sensitivity and specificity were equal, the Mcm5 test detected primary and recurrent bladder cancers with 69% sensitivity (95% confidence interval = 62–75%) and 93% negative predictive value (95% CI = 92–95%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for Mcm5 was 0.75 (95% CI = 0.71–0.79) and 0.72 (95% CI = 0.67–0.77) for NMP22. Importantly, Mcm5 combined with NMP22 identified 95% (79/83; 95% CI = 88–99%) of potentially life threatening diagnoses (i.e. grade 3 or carcinoma in situ or stage ≥pT1) with high specificity (72%, 95% CI = 69–74%). Conclusions The Mcm5 immunoassay is a non-invasive test for identifying patients with urothelial cancers with similar accuracy to the FDA-approved NMP22 ELISA Test Kit. The combination of Mcm5 plus NMP22 improves the detection of UCC and identifies 95% of clinically significant disease. Trials of a commercially developed Mcm5 assay suitable for an end-user laboratory alongside NMP22 are required to assess their potential clinical utility in improving diagnostic and surveillance care pathways.

We report results of the introduction of a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) care pathway. This included the introduction of a transversus abdominis plane (TAP) local anesthetic block and other measures to reduce the impact of factors known to delay postoperative recovery. Outcomes including pain, analgesic requirements, complications, and length of stay are reported.Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing LRP from 2008 to 2010 were prospectively studied. A detailed perioperative care pathway was developed and implemented. The pathway was modified after a pain audit to include bilateral transversus abdominis plane regional anesthetic blockade. Same day discharge criteria were applied to suitable patients. Demographics and perioperative and follow-up data were prospectively collected and recorded on a database.Overall, 78% of cases were discharged after 1 night stay; 14 patients were managed as true day cases without overnight stay. Operative time (P0.0001), intraoperative blood loss (P=0.018), %≤ 1 day stay (P=0.0091), transfusion, and conversion rate (nil in latter 100 cases) all improved significantly in the second 100 group of patients compared with the first 100 cases. The introduction of TAP blocks led to significant reductions of mean intraoperative and postoperative opiate use (17.3 mg to 1.3 mg and 1.9 mg to 0.2 mg morphine, respectively) without any significant effect on perceived pain. True day cases did not experience a significantly different rate of complications than the whole cohort.Through a structured care pathway incorporating the TAP block, 1 night stay laparoscopic prostatectomy can be safely delivered with reduced inpatient stay costs. In selected patients, day-case prostatectomy is feasible.

Background: The accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in prostate cancer detection is constrained by low sensitivity and specificity. Dysregulated expression of minichromosome maintenance (Mcm) 2–7 proteins is an early event in epithelial multistep carcinogenesis and thus MCM proteins represent powerful cancer diagnostic markers. In this study we investigate Mcm5 as a urinary biomarker for prostate cancer detection. Methods: Urine was obtained from 88 men with prostate cancer and from two control groups negative for malignancy. A strictly normal cohort included 28 men with complete, normal investigations, no urinary calculi and serum PSA

Background: The use of minimally invasive ablative therapies in localised prostate cancer offer potential for a middle ground between active surveillance and radical therapy. Methods: An analysis of men with organ-confined prostate cancer treated with transrectal whole-gland HIFU (Sonablate 500) between 1 February 2005 and 15 May 2007 was carried out in two centres. Outcome data (side-effects using validated patient questionnaires, biochemical, histology) were evaluated. Results: A total of 172 men were treated under general anaesthetic as day-case procedures with 78% discharged a mean 5 h after treatment. Mean follow-up was 346 days (range 135–759 days). Urethral stricture was significantly lower in those with suprapubic catheter compared with urethral catheters (19.4 vs 40.4%, P=0.005). Antibiotics were given to 23.8% of patients for presumed urinary tract infection and the rate of epididymitis was 7.6%. Potency was maintained in 70% by 12 months, whereas mild stress urinary incontinence (no pads) was reported in 7.0% (12 out of 172) with a further 0.6% (1 out of 172) requiring pads. There was no rectal toxicity and no recto-urethral fistulae. In all, 78.3% achieved a PSA nadir ⩽0.5 μg ml−1 at 12 months, with 57.8% achieving ⩽0.2 μg ml−1. Then, 8 out of 13 were retreated with HIFU, one had salvage external beam radiotherapy and four chose active surveillance for small-volume low-risk disease. Overall, there was no evidence of disease (PSA

OBJECTIVE To present a management algorithm for men with prostate cancer recurring after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), based on a review of published reports, to assist clinicians in identifying men who are suitable for salvage therapy and to help them to decide which type of salvage treatment is most likely to confer the desired outcome with the minimum of harm. METHODS Men with radiorecurrent prostate cancer require special consideration; they tend to be older, have more comorbidity and have worse disease than their contemporaries having primary treatment. Salvage treatment is compromised by the irradiated pelvis, resulting in increased treatment toxicity. Using the Pubmed database and reference lists of key articles, we identified studies relating to the management of radiorecurrent prostate cancer; the findings were incorporated into a management algorithm and summary table of treatments. RESULTS The American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology criteria, which define biochemical failure has now been superseded by the Phoenix definition (nadir prostate-specific antigen [PSA] plus 2 ng/mL). Biochemical follow-up after EBRT should be 3-monthly until the PSA level has reached a stable nadir after withdrawing androgen suppression. Contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an accurate tool and can be used for both the diagnosis and staging of patients with prostate cancer, in conjunction with prostate biopsies. Prostate biopsies should only be considered >2 years after EBRT to avoid false-positive results. In addition to MRI, high-risk cases being considered for salvage therapy should be considered for laparoscopic lymph-node dissection to exclude micrometastases. Deferred androgen suppression, laparoscopic or open radical prostatectomy, cryotherapy and high-intensity focused ultrasound all seem reasonable salvage treatment approaches. CONCLUSION Through improved methods of detection, including frequent PSA measurements, modern imaging and carefully obtained biopsies, those with radiorecurrent disease can be identified before their disease has spread. Rigorous staging will exclude those with micrometastases. The minimally invasive salvage therapies seem to offer an advantage over salvage surgery to patients in whom the benefits and harms are so finely balanced.

Activation of mitogen/extracellular-signal-regulated kinase kinase 5/extracellular signal-regulated kinase-5 (MEK5/ERK5) growth signalling is coupled to increased cell proliferation in prostate cancer (PCa). Dysregulation of the DNA replication licensing pathway, a critical step in growth control downstream of transduction signalling pathways, is associated with development of PCa. In this study we have investigated linkages between the MEK5/ERK5 pathway and DNA replication licensing during prostate carcinogenesis. The effects of increased MEK5/ERK5 signalling on the expression of replication licensing factors Mcm2 and geminin and the proliferation marker Ki67 were studied in an ecdysone-inducible system expressing a constitutively activated mutant of MEK5 in EcR293 cells and in stable ERK5 over-expressing PC3 clones. In parallel, expression of these biomarkers in PCa biopsy specimens (n=58) was studied and compared to clinicopathological parameters. In both in vitro systems induction of MEK5 expression resulted in increased levels of phosphorylated ERK5 and Mcm2, geminin and Ki67 proteins. In PCa specimens average Mcm2 expression was greater than Ki67 and geminin expression (median labelling index (LI) 36.7, 18.1, and 3.4% respectively), consistent with their differential expression according to growth status (P