Search

Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common oncologic disease among men. Radical treatment with curative intent provides good oncological results for PCa survivors, although definitive therapy is associated with significant number of serious side-effects. In modern-era of medicine tissue-sparing techniques, such as focal HIFU, have been proposed for PCa patients in order to provide cancer control equivalent to the standard-of-care procedures while reducing morbidities and complications. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the available evidence about focal HIFU therapy as a primary treatment for localized PCa. Material and methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review of focal HIFU therapy in the MEDLINE database (PROSPERO: CRD42021235581). Articles published in the English language between 2010 and 2020 with more than 50 patients were included. Results: Clinically significant in-field recurrence and out-of-field progression were detected to 22% and 29% PCa patients, respectively. Higher ISUP grade group, more positive cores at biopsy and bilateral disease were identified as the main risk factors for disease recurrence. The most common strategy for recurrence management was definitive therapy. Six months after focal HIFU therapy 98% of patients were totally continent and 80% of patients retained sufficient erections for sexual intercourse. The majority of complications presented in the early postoperative period and were classified as low-grade. Conclusions: This review highlights that focal HIFU therapy appears to be a safe procedure, while short-term cancer control rate is encouraging. Though, second-line treatment or active surveillance seems to be necessary in a significant number of patients.

Background Focal Therapy (FT) for Prostate Cancer (PCa) is promising. However, long-term oncological results are awaited and there is no consensus on follow-up strategies. Molecular biomarkers (MB) may be useful in selecting, treating and following up men undergoing FT, though there is limited evidence in this field to guide practice. We aimed to conduct a consensus meeting, endorsed by the Focal Therapy Society, amongst a large group of experts, to understand the potential utility of MB in FT for localised PCa. Materials and methods A 38-item questionnaire was built following a literature search. The authors then performed three rounds of a Delphi Consensus using DelphiManager, using the GRADE grid scoring system, followed by a face-to-face expert meeting. Three areas of interest were identified and covered concerning MB for FT, i) the current/present role; ii) the potential/future role; iii) the recommended features for future studies. Consensus was defined using a 70% agreement threshold. Results Of 95 invited experts, 42 (44.2%) completed the three Delphi rounds. Twenty-four items reached a consensus and they were then approved at the meeting involving (n=15) experts. Fourteen items reached a consensus on uncertainty, or they did not reach a consensus. They were re-discussed, resulting in a consensus (n=3), a consensus on a partial agreement (n=1), and a consensus on uncertainty (n=10). A final list of statements were derived from the approved and discussed items, with the addition of three generated statements, to provide guidance regarding MB in the context of FT for localised PCa. Research efforts in this field should be considered a priority. Conclusions The present study detailed an initial consensus on the use of MB in FT for PCa. This is until evidence becomes available on the subject.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-ultrasound (US) fusion prostate biopsy (FBx) has demonstrated increased accuracy for prostate cancer detection at designated centers of excellence. There is a concern if their results can be reproduced in smaller centers. Here, we evaluate the outcomes of FBx from a smaller academic center.A retrospective review of patients without a prior diagnosis of prostate cancer undergoing FBx from January 2014 to November 2019 was performed. Histopathological results were grouped into low-risk disease (Grade Group 1), intermediate-risk disease (Grade Group 2 and 3), and high-risk disease (Grade Group 4 or 5). Clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer was defined as Grade Group ≥ 2.Five hundred and six men were included. Median age (IQR) and PSA (IQR) were 65.2 (60.3-70.2) years and 6.9 (5.2-9.7) ng/ml, respectively. There was no difference in overall cancer detection between FBx and SBx (53.6% vs 56.4%FBx detects a higher proportion of clinically significant disease and a lower proportion of clinically insignificant disease compared to SBx, in line with outcomes demonstrated by centers of excellence.

PURPOSE: Currently, there is a dearth of data concerning the impact of hypogonadism on prostate cancer detection by imaging. In this study, we evaluated the performance of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and mpMRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in hypogonadal patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical and pathologic data from a prospectively maintained, single-institution database of patients who underwent 3T mpMRI and fusion biopsy between 2007 and 2016 were analyzed. Hypogonadism was defined by an institutional cutoff of serum testosterone ≤ 180 ng/dL; T2, DWI, and DCE scores were calculated from mpMRI. Cancer detection rates were compared by Chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was undertaken to evaluate the impact of hypogonadism on clinically significant cancer detection by systematic and fusion biopsy. RESULTS: We included 522 patients in our study who had total testosterone levels measured within 90 days of mpMRI. Of these, 49 (9.4%) were hypogonadal. Median total testosterone was 148 ng/dL (IQR 41) in the hypogonadal group, and 304 ng/dL (IQR 132) in the normogonadal group (p < 0.001). Imaging results were comparable between the hypo and normogonadal groups. In the hypogonadal group, systematic biopsy detected clinically significant cancer in 28.6% of patients compared to 40.8% with fusion biopsy. In the normogonadal cohort, systematic and fusion biopsy detected 37.3% and 43.2% CS cancer, respectively. In the hypogonadal cohort, fusion biopsy detected 12.2% more CS cancers compared to systematic biopsy, while it detected only 5.9% more in the normogonadal cohort. On multivariate analysis, hypogonadism was found to be an independent predictor of decreased CS cancer detection on systematic (p = 0.048), but not on fusion biopsy (p = 0.170). CONCLUSIONS: Hypogonadism is an independent predictor of lower CS cancer detection on systematic biopsy. However, it fails to significantly impact CS detection on fusion biopsy with comparable cancer detection rates in both groups. Patients with hypogonadism may benefit more from fusion biopsy than normogonadal patients.

Biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer occurs in 25-33% of patients who undergo radiation therapy (RT). Unfortunately, greater than 90% of patients with radiation recurrence undergo androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), despite the detrimental side effect profile and the lack of supporting evidence for ADT use in local recurrence. In patients who experience recurrence after treatment with RT, options for treatment include salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP), salvage cryotherapy (SCT), salvage brachytherapy (SBT), and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). These salvage treatments provide recurrence-free survival in almost half of the patients with an acceptable safety profile. However, it is important to note that approximately 20-40% of radio-recurrent prostate cancers are isolated and local. Recent studies have shown salvage focal treatments to have encouraging outcomes with significantly less side effects. This article summarizes the outcomes of currently used salvage treatment options for radio-recurrent prostate cancer and focuses on recent advancements in image-guided focal salvage therapies.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess post-interventional and 36-month follow-up results of a single-center, single-arm, in-bore phase I trial of focal laser ablation (FLA) guided by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). METHODS: FLA procedures were done in-bore MRI using a transperineal approach. Primary endpoints were feasibility and safety expressed as lack of grade 3 complications. Secondary endpoints were changes in international prostate symptom score (IPSS), sexual health inventory for men (SHIM), quality of life (QoL) scores, and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels. Treatment outcomes were assessed by combined mpMRI-ultrasound fusion-guided and extended sextant systematic biopsy after 12, 24, and optionally after 36 months. RESULTS: Fifteen participants were included. Seven patients (46.67%) had Gleason 3+3 and 8 patients (53.33%) had Gleason 3+4 cancer. All patients tolerated the procedure well, and no grade 3/4 complications occurred. All grade 1 and 2 complications were transient and resolved completely. There was no significant change in mean IPSS from baseline (−1, p = 0.460) and QoL (0, p = 0.441) scores following FLA but there was a significant drop in mean SHIM scores (−2, p = 0.010) compared to pretreatment baselines. Mean PSA significantly decreased after FLA (−2.5, p < 0.001). Seven out of 15 patients (46.67%) had residual cancer in, adjacent, or in close proximity to the treatment area (1 × 4+3=7, 1 × 3+4=7, and 5 × 3+3=6). Four out of 15 patients (26.67%) underwent salvage therapy (2 repeat FLA, 2 radical prostatectomy). CONCLUSION: After 3 years of follow-up we conclude focal laser ablation is safe and feasible without significant complications.

Objective: To compare the detection rate of clinically significant cancer (CSCa) by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) with that by standard systematic biopsy (SB) and to evaluate the role of MRI-TB as a replacement from SB in men at clinical risk of prostate cancer. Methods: The non-systematic literature was searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles using PubMed, including the prospective paired studies, where the index test was MRI-TB and the comparator text was SB. Also the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are included if one arm was MRI-TB and another arm was SB. Results: Eighteen prospective studies used both MRI-TB and TRUS-SB, and eight RCT received one of the tests for prostate cancer detection. In most prospective trials to compare MRI-TB vs. SB, there was no significant difference in any cancer detection rate; however, MRI-TB detected more men with CSCa and fewer men with CISCa than SB. Conclusion: MRI-TB is superior to SB in detection of CSCa. Since some significant cancer was detected by SB only, a combination of SB with the TB technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of CSCa.

Several advancements have been made in recent years with regards to the detection and evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa). The low specificity of prostate specific antigen (PSA) has left much to be desired in a test, but a boom in novel biomarkers has made screening and surveillance more complicated. Several attempts at identifying a niche for these tests has helped somewhat, but much is still undetermined about the benefit that each test provides. In addition to laboratory tests, advancements in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and PIRADSv.2 scoring have provided significant benefit to the evaluation of PCa. With the widespread use of prostate imaging, it is important to re-evaluate the impact of novel biomarkers in the context of furthering PCa screening and management. In this review, we aim to assess the influence mpMRI has on the role of nine different novel biomarkers in the detection and evaluation of PCa. We performed a review of current peer-reviewed literature to assess this question. Much data has been published on the role of these tests, allowing for their placement into one of three best-fit categories: tests for biopsy-naïve men (Prostate Health Index, Mi Prostate Score, 4K Score); tests for men with prior negative biopsies (ConfirmMDx, Progensa PCA3); and men on active surveillance (OncotypeDx, Prolaris, Decipher). Data on the role of these tests with the use of mpMRI have not been comprehensive and excludes several of the markers. More research is needed to determine the combined impact mpMRI and the novel biomarkers on the evaluation and management of PCa.

BACKGROUND: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common histologically defined renal cancer. However, it is not a uniform disease and includes several genetic subtypes with different prognoses. ccRCC is also characterized by distinctive metabolic reprogramming. Tobacco smoking (TS) is an established risk factor for ccRCC, with unknown effects on tumor pathobiology. METHODS: We investigated the landscape of ccRCCs and paired normal kidney tissues using integrated transcriptomic, metabolomic, and metallomic approaches in a cohort of white males who were long-term current smokers (LTS) or were never smokers (NS). RESULTS: All 3 Omics domains consistently identified a distinct metabolic subtype of ccRCCs in LTS, characterized by activation of oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) coupled with reprogramming of the malate-aspartate shuttle and metabolism of aspartate, glutamate, glutamine, and histidine. Cadmium, copper, and inorganic arsenic accumulated in LTS tumors, showing redistribution among intracellular pools, including relocation of copper into the cytochrome c oxidase complex. A gene expression signature based on the LTS metabolic subtype provided prognostic stratification of The Cancer Genome Atlas ccRCC tumors that was independent of genomic alterations. CONCLUSION: The work identified the TS-related metabolic subtype of ccRCC with vulnerabilities that can be exploited for precision medicine approaches targeting metabolic pathways. The results provided rationale for the development of metabolic biomarkers with diagnostic and prognostic applications using evaluation of OXPHOS status. The metallomic analysis revealed the role of disrupted metal homeostasis in ccRCC, highlighting the importance of studying effects of metals from e-cigarettes and environmental exposures. FUNDING: Department of Defense, Veteran Administration, NIH, ACS, and University of Cincinnati Cancer Institute.

Background: With the advancement of imaging technology, focal therapy (FT) has been gaining acceptance for the treatment of select patients with localized prostate cancer (CaP). We aim to provide details of a formal physician consensus on the utilization of FT for patients with CaP who are discontinuing active surveillance (AS). Methods: A 3-stage Delphi consensus on CaP and FT was conducted. Consensus was defined as agreement by >= 80% of physicians. An in-person meeting was attended by 17 panelists to formulate the consensus statement. Results: Fifty-six respondents participated in this interdisciplinary consensus study (82% urologist, 16% radiologist, 2% radiation oncology). The participants confirmed that there is a role for FT in men discontinuing AS (48% strongly agree, 39% agree). The benefit of FT over radical therapy for men coming off AS is: less invasive (91%), has a greater likelihood to preserve erectile function (91%), has a greater likelihood to preserve urinary continence (91%), has fewer side effects (86%), and has early recovery post-treatment (80%). Patients will need to undergo mpMRI of the prostate and/or a saturation biopsy to determine if they are potential candidates for FT. Our limitations include respondent's biases and that the participants of this consensus may not represent the larger medical community. Conclusions: FT can be offered to men coming off AS between the age of 60 to 80 with grade group 2 localized cancer. This consensus from a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional, international expert panel provides a contemporary insight utilizing FT for CaP in select patients who are discontinuing AS. United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA ; European Urological Scholarship Programme (EUSP)

Background To compare the pathologic upgrade and downgrade rates after radical prostatectomy (RP) between patients diagnosed by prebiopsy prostate MRI followed by a combination of systematic and fusion biopsy (ComBx) versus patients undergoing systematic biopsy only (SBx). Methods A retrospective review of men undergoing RP at our institution between Jan 2014 and Mar 2020 was performed. These patients were separated into two independent cohorts based on two approaches: Patients receiving prebiopsy prostate MRI during initial evaluation and those who did not receive MRI. Patients with positive MRI findings underwent subsequent ComBx to confirm diagnosis while those without MRI underwent standard trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided systematic 12-core biopsy (SBx). Primary outcomes were rates of pathological upgrade (prostatectomy grade higher than grade determined at time of biopsy) and downgrade (prostatectomy grade lower than biopsy grade). Results A total of 213 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, 91 diagnosed via a prebiopsy MRI and ComBx approach and 122 diagnosed by a traditional SBx approach, were included in the study. There was no significant difference between age, PSA, or positive family history between the two cohorts. Of the 91 patients who received prebiopsy MRI, 88 patients were determined to have a PIRADS 4 or 5 lesion. Patients who received MRI and subsequent ComBx had a lower rate of any pathological upgrade after RP (9.89% vs. 22.13%, P = 0.018) without a significant difference in pathologic downgrade rate (28.57% vs. 18.85%, P = 0.095). On multivariable logistic regression, receiving prebiopsy MRI during initial evaluation was the single negative independent predictor of pathologic upgrade (OR = 0.23, P = 0.017). A prebiopsy MRI approach was also the single predictor of pathologic downgrade (OR = 3.13, P = 0.041). Conclusions Patients receiving prebiopsy MRI during prostate cancer evaluation were less likely to have their PCa upgraded. Furthermore, although diagnosis via MRI and subsequent ComBx was associated with an increased rate of downgrades after RP, relatively few resulted in a downgrade from clinically significant to clinically insignificant cancer.

Background Focal therapy (FT) and partial gland ablation (PGA) are quickly adopted by urologists and radiologists as an option for the management of localized prostate cancer. Objective To find consensus on a standardized nomenclature and to define a follow-up guideline after FT and PGA for localized prostate cancer in clinical practice. Design, setting, and participants A review of the literature identified controversial topics in the field of FT. Online questionnaires were distributed to experts during three rounds, with the goal to achieve consensus on debated topics. The consensus project was concluded with a face-to-face meeting in which final conclusions were formulated. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Controlled feedback of responses of previous rounds were summarized and returned to the participants allowing them to re-evaluate their decisions. The level of agreement to achieve consensus on a topic was set at 80%. Results and limitations Sixty-five experts participated in this interdisciplinary consensus study (72% urologists; 28% radiologists). The experts propose the use of the herein standardized nomenclature for ablative procedures. After FT/PGA, the following tests should be performed to assess treatment outcomes: prostate-specific antigen (PSA), imaging, biopsies, and functional outcome assessment. Although not a reliable marker for treatment failure, PSA should be measured every 3 mo in the 1st year and every 6 mo thereafter. Magnetic resonance imaging is the preferred image modality and should be performed at 6 and 18 mo after treatment. A systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy combined with a targeted biopsy of the treated area should be performed 6–12 mo after treatment. Functional outcomes should be obtained 3–6 mo after treatment for the first time and until stability is attained. Conclusions The panel recommends the use of the proposed nomenclature and follow-up protocols to generate reliable data supporting a broader implementation of FT as a standard of care for select patients with localized prostate cancer. Patient summary In this report, we present expert opinion on the use of a standardized nomenclature, and surveillance methodologies after focal therapy and partial gland ablation for localized prostate cancer.

Introduction: Focal therapy of prostate cancer aims to destroy known cancer while preserving uninvolved prostatic tissue with the goal of preserving genitourinary function.1,2 Previous methods of f...

Introduction: There are reports that the 12-core template systematic biopsies (SBx) obtained by using software registration machines (e.g., Artemis) have higher cancer detection rates (CDRs) of pro...

Black men have significantly higher incidence and are up to three times more likely to die of prostate cancer (PCa) than White men. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy (FBx) has emerged as a promising modality for the detection of PCa. The goal of our study is to identify differences in utilization of FBx between Black and White men presenting with suspicion of PCa. We performed a retrospective review of Black and White men who presented with suspicion of PCa and required biopsy from January 2014 to December 2018. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to study the influence of race on the utilization of FBx. Six hundred nineteen (Black: 182, White: 437) men were included in the study. Forty-one out of 182 (22.5%) Black men underwent FBx compared with 225/437 (51.5%) of White men (P

Magnetic resonance imaging of prostate is currently widely used for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. First utilized in the early 1980s, MRI technology was rapidly recognized as a promising technique for characterizing pelvic and specifically prostatic anatomy. Further advancements, including the addition of diffusion weighted imaging and dynamic contrast enhanced imaging have continued to propel MRI into the forefront of prostate cancer care, notably with the development of the multiparametric MRI. This article reviews past advancements and performance in MRI in the screening and management of prostate cancer, as well as current thought on its place in contemporary urology. Future developments and avenues for advancement are described.

BACKGROUND Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v. 2 (PI-RADSv2) provides standardized nomenclature for interpretation of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Inclusion of additional features for categorization may provide benefit to stratification of disease. PURPOSE To prospectively compare PI-RADSv2 to a qualitative in-house system for detecting prostate cancer on mpMRI. STUDY TYPE Prospective. POPULATION In all, 338 patients who underwent mpMRI May 2015-May 2016, with subsequent MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy. FIELD STRENGTH 3T mpMRI (T2 W, diffusion-weighted [DW], apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] map, b-2000 DWI acquisition, and dynamic contrast-enhanced [DCE] MRI). ASSESSMENT One genitourinary radiologist prospectively read mpMRIs using both in-house and PI-RADSv2 5-category systems. STATISTICAL TEST In lesion-based analysis, overall and clinically significant (CS) tumor detection rates (TDR) were calculated for all PI-RADSv2 and in-house categories. The ability of each scoring system to detect cancer was assessed by area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Within each PI-RADSv2 category, lesions were further stratified by their in-house categories to determine if TDRs can be increased by combining features of both systems. RESULTS In 338 patients (median prostate-specific antigen [PSA] 6.5 [0.6-113.6] ng/mL; age 64 [44-84] years), 733 lesions were identified (47% tumor-positive). Predictive abilities of both systems were comparable for all (AUC 76-78%) and CS cancers (AUCs 79%). The in-house system had higher overall and CS TDRs than PI-RADSv2 for categories 3 and 4 (P

PURPOSE: Population studies of patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer (BC) suggest that a more extended lymph node dissection (LND) increases survival. However, information regarding LNDs of patients undergoing RC with a history of radiation therapy for BC is largely unknown. This study aims to define the lymph node yield (LNY) in patients undergoing RC for BC following radiation of the bladder using the surveillance epidemiology and end results (SEER) database. METHODS: Data were collected using SEER 18 registries from 1988 to 2013 to identify patients undergoing RC for BC. Data on extent and yield of LND were obtained. Logistic regression and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression were done to identify predictors of adequate LND and all-cause mortality, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 27,451 patients were identified, of which, 27,362 (99.7%) were radiation naïve and 89 (0.3%) had prior radiation therapy for BC. The average LNY in radiation naïve patients (15, SD [13.5]) was slightly higher than the LNY in patients with prior radiation (12.3 SD [9.2], p = 0.157). Prior radiation was not an independent predictor of overall mortality (HR = 1.3, 95% CI [0.98–1.7]; p = 0.076). CONCLUSIONS: A lower proportion of patients with a history of radiation underwent a LND. The LNYs of radiation naïve patients, and those with a history of radiation, were not statistically different; however, the proportion of irradiated patients was small. Further investigation will be required to elucidate the patient and provider characteristics that contribute to the similar LNYs.

The PRECISION trial demonstrated the ability of using multiparametric MRI to improve the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer whilst reducing over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer compared with systematic biopsy. Concerns remained about patients who were not biopsied owing to negative scans. A new study applies the PRECISION strategy to a contemporary cohort to answer these concerns.

There is great a potential for mpMRI to improve outcomes and quality of treatment. The major roles of MRI will continue to expand and its emerging use in standard of care approaches becomes more clearly defined and supported by increasing levels of data. Active surveillance has gained popularity as an acceptable management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. Successful utilization of this strategy can delay or prevent unnecessary interventions - thereby reducing morbidity associated with overtreatment. The usefulness of active surveillance primarily depends on correct identification of patients with low-risk disease. However, current population-wide algorithms and tools do not adequately exclude high-risk disease, thereby limiting the confidence of clinicians and patients to go on active surveillance. Novel imaging tools such as mpMRI provide information about the size and location of potential cancers enabling more informed treatment decisions. The term "multiparametric" in prostate mpMRI refers to the summation of several MRI series into one examination whose initial goal is to identify potential clinically-significant lesions suitable for targeted biopsy. The main advantages of MRI are its superior anatomic resolution and the lack of ionizing radiation. Recently, the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System has been instituted as an international standard for unifying mpMRI results. The imaging sequences in mpMRI defined by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 includes: T2-weighted MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI, derived apparent-diffusion coefficient from diffusion-weighted MRI, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. The use of mpMRI prior to starting active surveillance could prevent those with missed, high-grade lesions from going on active surveillance, and reassure those with minimal disease who may be hesitant to take part in active surveillance. Although larger validation studies are still necessary, preliminary results suggest mpMRI has a role in selecting patients for active surveillance. Less certain is the role of mpMRI in monitoring patients on active surveillance, as data on this will take a long time to mature. The biggest obstacles to routine use of prostate MRI are quality control, cost, reproducibility, and access. Nevertheless, there is great a potential for mpMRI to improve outcomes and quality of treatment. The major roles of MRI will continue to expand and its emerging use in standard of care approaches becomes more clearly defined and supported by increasing levels of data.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of systematic 12-core biopsies (SBx) has shown that African-American (AA) men tend to harbor higher risk prostate cancer (PCa) at presentation relative to other races. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MRI-ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FBx) have been shown to diagnose more intermediate- and high-risk PCa in the general population; however, the efficacy in AA remains largely uncharacterized. We aim to evaluate the utility of FBx in an AA patient cohort. METHODS: Men suspected of PCa underwent an mpMRI and FBx with concurrent SBx from 2007 to 2015 in this institutional review board-approved prospective cohort study. Patient demographics, imaging and fusion biopsy variables were collected. χ(2), Mann–Whitney U-test and McNemar’s tests were performed to compare proportions, means and paired variables, respectively. Clinically significant PCa (CSPCa) was defined as Gleason score ≥ 3+4. RESULTS: Fusion biopsy demonstrated exact agreement with SBx risk categories in 64% of AA men. There was no statistically significant difference in the detection of CSPCa between FBx vs SBx (68 vs 62 cases, P = 0.36). However, FBx detected 41% fewer cases of clinically insignificant PCa (CIPCa) compared with SBx (FBx 30 vs SBx 51 cases, P = 0.0004). The combined FBx/SBx biopsy approach detected significantly more cases of CSPCa (FBx/SBx 80 vs SBx 62 cases, P = 0.004) while detecting comparable number of cases of CIPCa (FBx/SBx 45 vs SBx 51 cases, P = 0.37) compared with SBx alone. FBx/SBx also detected more CSPCa in patients with a history of prior negative SBx (FBx/SBx 28 vs 19 cases, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: FBx when used in combination with SBx detected more cases of CSPCa while not significantly increasing the diagnosis of CIPCa in AA men. Future multicenter studies will be needed to validate ultimately the clinical implications of FBx in AA patients.

BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 (PCPTRC) is a widely used risk-based calculator used to assess a man’s risk of prostate cancer (PCa) before biopsy. This risk calculator was created from data of a patient cohort undergoing a 6-core sextant biopsy, and subsequently validated in men undergoing 12-core systematic biopsy (SBx). The accuracy of the PCPTRC has not been studied in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided biopsy (FBx). We sought to assess the performance of the PCPTRC for straitifying PCa risk in a FBx cohort. METHODS: A review of a prospective cohort undergoing MRI and FBx/SBx was conducted. Data from consecutive FBx/SBx were collected between August 2007 and February 2014, and PCPTRC scores using the PCPTRC2.0R-code were calculated. The risk of positive biopsy and high-grade cancer (Gleason ≥ 7) on biopsy was calculated and compared with overall and high-grade cancer detection rates (CDRs). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were compared using DeLong’s test. RESULTS: Of 595 men included in the study, PCa was detected in 39% (232) by SBx compared with 48% (287) on combined FBx/SBx biopsy. The PCPTRC AUCs for the CDR were similar (P = 0.70) for SBx (0.69) and combined biopsy (0.70). For high-grade disease, AUCs for SBx (0.71) and combined biopsy (0.70) were slightly higher, but were not statistically different (P = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: In an MRI-screened population of men undergoing FBx, PCPTRC continues to represent a practical method of accurately stratifying PCa risk.

The clinical role of fluorine-18 fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is still evolving. Use of FDG PET in RCC is currently not a standard investigation in the diagnosis and staging of RCC due to its renal excretion. This review focuses on the clinical role and current status of FDG PET and PET/CT in RCC. Studies investigating the role of FDG PET in localized RCC were largely disappointing. Several studies have demonstrated that the use of hybrid imaging PET/CT is feasible in evaluating the extra-renal disease. A current review of the literature determines PET/CT to be a valuable tool both in treatment decision-making and monitoring and in predicting the survival in recurrent and metastatic RCC. PET/CT might be a viable option in the evaluation of RCC, especially recurrent and metastatic disease. PET/CT has also shown to play a role in predicting survival and monitoring therapy response.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Focal therapy (FT) for localized prostate cancer (CaP) has been shown to have encouraging short-term oncological outcomes, excellent preservation of functional outcomes and is increasing in popularity in urologic community. We aim to evaluate the preferences and practice trends among urologists regarding this treatment strategy. METHODS: A 20 item online questionnaire was designed to collect information on urologists’ views and use of FT. The survey was sent to the members of the Endourological Society and the American Urological Association. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors for utilization of FT. RESULTS: A total of 425 responses were received [American Urological Association: 319, Endourological Society: 106]. Mean age of respondents was 53(SD: 11.3) years. Although half of the respondents (50.8%) believed FT to be moderate to extremely beneficial in the treatment of CaP, only 24.2% (103) of the respondents currently utilize FT in their practice. Respondents who were fellowship trained in urologic oncology were more likely to consider FT to be at least moderately beneficial (P < 0.001). Surgeon’s experience (greater than 15 years in urology practice) (P = 0.025) and seeing more than 10 patients with new CaP diagnosis per month (P = 0.002) were independent predictors of FT utilization for localized CaP. While the most common setting for utilization of FT was in patients with unilateral intermediate-risk (72.8%) CaP, a small percentage of respondents also used FT for patients with unilateral high-risk CaP and bilateral intermediate risk (21.4% and 10.7%, respectively). Most common reasons for not using FT were the lack of belief in ‘index lesion theory’ (63.2%), lack of experience (41.3%), lack of belief in FT’s efficacy (41.1%), lack of infrastructure (35.8%), difficult salvage treatment in cases of recurrence (22.7%) and high cost (21.8%). About 57.6% would use FT more often in an office or outpatient setting if they had access to reliable and cost-effective options. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of our respondents utilize FT in their practice with surgeon’s experience being the important independent predictor for using FT. Majority of respondents though consider FT to be beneficial in CaP management, would use it more often if provided more reliable and cost-effective options. Over time, experience and accessibility to reliable methods to perform FT may lead to further utilization of this novel treatment strategy.

PURPOSE: MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy (FBx) has proven efficacy in targeting suspicious areas that are traditionally missed by systematic 12-core biopsy (SBx). Midline prostate lesions are undersampled during SBx, as traditional approaches aim laterally during TRUS biopsy. The aim of our study was to determine the utility of FBx for targeting midline lesions identified on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). METHODS: A review was performed of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing mpMRI followed by FBx and SBx from 2007 to 2015. Midline location was defined as any lesion crossing the midline on axial imaging and involving both prostatic lobes. Index lesion was defined as lesion with highest Gleason score on biopsy. Patient demographic, imaging, and histopathologic data were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to determine independent predictors of having clinically significant (CS) cancer (Gleason ≥ 7) in midline lesions. RESULTS: Out of 1266 patients, we identified 202 suspicious midline lesions in 190 patients [median (IQR) age 63 (10) years; PSA 7.6 (6.6)]. Eighty-eight (46.3 %) patients had cancer detection on FBx of midline lesion. A midline target represented the index lesion of the prostate in 63/190 (33.2 %) patients. Risk category upgrading based on FBx of a midline lesion compared to SBx occurred in 45/190 patients (23.7 %). On multivariate analysis, higher PSA (p = .001), lower MRI-derived prostate volume (p < .001), and moderate–high or high suspicion on mpMRI (p = .014) predicted CS cancer in midline lesions. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-TRUS FBx facilitates sampling of midline lesions. Integration of mpMRI and FBx for targeting of midline lesions improves detection of CS prostate cancer.

To identify the risk factors associated with development of postoperative elevation of creatine kinase (CK) and study its effect on renal function in patients who underwent complex multifocal partial nephrectomy (PN).Patients who underwent PN at National Cancer Institute between January 2007 and December 2012 were included in the study. Elevated serum CK was defined as2000 U/L. Kidney function was assessed using serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Changes were reported as percent change from preoperative values and compared using the Wilcoxon test. Regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of elevation in CK and decline in eGFR.From 407 total cases, 207 had adequate CK data for analysis. Median number of tumors removed was 3 (1-70). Median peak CK was 1458 (82-36,788). Forty-two percent developed CK elevation2000 U/L. Factors associated with postoperative elevation of CK 2000 were young age (p = 0.009), high BMI (p = 0.003) and operating room time (p 0.001). Although CK 2000 was associated with significantly greater decline in eGFR (37.4 vs. 20.3 %, p 0.001) in immediate postoperative period, this change largely resolved to a much less clinically relevant (9.2 vs 3.3 %, p = 0.040) change after 3 months. On multivariate analysis, postoperative elevation in CK was not found to be an independent factor determining renal function at 3 months.In our cohort, a significant proportion of patients developed CK elevations2000 U/L. While patients with elevated CK had more decline in eGFR in immediate postoperative period, postoperative elevations of CK did not appear to impact overall long-term renal function in patients undergoing PN.

A patient with germline von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) gene alteration and history of multiple tumors present with classical paraneoplastic syndrome (PNS) associated with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). She underwent open nephron sparing surgery with resolution of symptoms. She remained without recurrence of RCC for the initial 2 years of her follow-up. To the best of our knowledge, this case represents the first in which PNS was specifically resolved using a partial nephrectomy in a patient with VHL. This case report provides initial evidence for the potential role of nephron sparing surgery in the management of paraneoplastic symptoms associated with hereditary RCC.

Focal therapy of prostate cancer aims to target cancer containing areas of prostate while leaving surrounding native tissue preserved, thus decreasing the risk of complications seen in whole gland treatments like radical prostatectomy and external beam radiation therapy. However, an intrinsic obstacle to the widespread implementation of the focal therapy is the tendency of prostate cancer to exhibit multifocality. For this reason, it is of paramount importance to ensure accurate disease localization prior to recommending this treatment option to patients, in order to avoid missing potentially aggressive cancers. Prostate multiparametric-MRI has shown efficacy in accurately detecting prostate cancer, and in theory this could be applied to patient selection for focal therapy. In this review we aim to explore the key tenets of prostate cancer focal treatments, and present a case for multiparametric-MRI to be used in patient selection for focal therapy.

N/A

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with persistently elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) and prior negative 12-core TRUS prostate biopsy (or biopsies) (SBx) are a diagnostic challenge. Repeat SBx or saturation biopsy in this cohort has been shown to have an even lower yield. The aim of our study is to compare the prostate cancer yield of MRI fusion biopsy (FBx) to SBx in a multi-institutional cohort comprised of patients with prior negative biopsies. METHODS: A multi-institutional review was performed on patients with a history of one or more prior negative SBx who underwent multiparametric MRI (MpMRI), followed by FBx and SBx in the same session. Imaging protocol was standardized across institutions and institutional genitourinary radiologists and pathologists reviewed mpMRI and pathology, respectively. Gleason Score (GS) distribution and risk classifications were recorded. Prostate cancer with GS ≥ 3+4 was defined as clinically significant (CS). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression was done to identify predictors of cancer detection on SBx and FBx. RESULTS: Seven-hundred seventy-nine patients from four institutions were included in the study. Median age and PSA (IQR) were 63.1 (58.5-68.0) years and 8.5 (5.9-13.1) ng/dL, respectively. Median number of prior negative biopsies (range) was 2.0 (1-16). The cancer detection rate (CDR) in the cohort was 346/779 patients (44.4%). Total CS CDR was 30.7% (239/779 patients), with FBx detecting 26.3% (205/779) of patients with CS disease and SBx diagnosing an additional 4.4% (34/779) of patients (p6) (One negative biopsy 11.5% versus 3.6%, 2-3 negative biopsy 10.3% versus 5.3%, 4 or more negative biopsies 19.1% versus 1.1%). On multivariable analysis, the number of prior negative biopsies was a significant negative predictor of CS CDR on SBx (p=0.006), but not on FBx (p=0.151). CONCLUSIONS: Using a large multi-institutional cohort, we were able to demonstrate that FBx outperformed SBx in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy. This was due, in part, to the decreasing CS CDR by SBx with increased number of prior biopsies. The yield of FBx stayed constant and did not decrease with increased number of prior negative biopsies. Therefore, repeat SBx alone in patients with multiple prior negative biopsies will be hindered by lower yield and FBx should be utilized concurrently in these patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the negative predictive value (NPV) of a negative prostate multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in ruling out clinically significant prostate upon 12-core systematic biopsy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 114 men evaluated at our institution who underwent systematic 12-core biopsy within 1 year of a negative prostate mpMRI. Clinicopathologic features were evaluated and NPV was calculated for detection of clin-ically significant (Gleason ≥ 7) cancer. Regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors of biopsy outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 88 (77.2%) patients in our cohort had no cancer detected upon biopsy. The highest pathologic grade was Gleason 6 (3 + 3) in 22 (19.3%) patients, and Gleason ≥ 7 in 4 (3.6%) patients. NPV for detecting Gleason ≥ 7 cancer was 96.5% (95% CI 93.1–99.9%) in the entire negative MRI cohort, 100% in those who were prostate biopsy naive (n = 20), 100% in those with a prior negative biopsy (n = 53), and 90% in those who have had a previous positive biopsy and on active surveillance (n = 41). Regression analysis identified no predictors of significant cancer in our cohort. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of men with no lesions detected on prostate mpMRI, we found very low rates of clinically significant cancer on systematic 12-core biopsy. In the few patients who diagnosed with prostate cancer, the majority had low-risk disease and could remain on active surveillance. Although validation studies and greater sample size is needed before clinical recommendations can be made, our data suggest patients with negative mpMRI evaluated by experienced radiologists may avoid unnecessary prostate biopsy and potential overtreatment.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate (mpMRI) is a new rising diagnostic modality in prostate cancer management. The combination of anatomic and functional sequences allows for detection, localization, and characterization of prostate cancer lesions. This leads to shift from staging to other clinical applications. However, lack of standardization of scanning, detection, and reporting protocols is a major drawback. Current main applications of mpMRI are detection, staging, and localization with the latter one enabling targeted biopsies of MRI-detected lesions. With this approach, more clinically significant and less insignificant cancer lesions are detected. This technique has the potential to help solving the dilemma of overdiagnosis of indolent cancers and underdiagnosis of potentially aggressive cancers. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) is an attempt to establish more standardization in mpMRI. This new guideline could facilitate the clinical and scientific exchange among different institutions and therefore assist in gathering more multi-center evidence. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate improves detection and staging of prostate cancer. In conjunction with targeted biopsy techniques, it allows for better characterization of the real tumor burden compared to template systematic biopsy. Potential future applications include active surveillance, detection of recurrence, metastasis and planning, and follow-up of focal therapy.

We describe a case of an unusual finding during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in a 66-year-old man with stage IIb (T2c, N0, M0) prostate adenocarcinoma. During the operation, intraperitoneal examination of the rectovesical pouch revealed calcifications and stones, which were subsequently identified as gallstones. Although these stones were not noted initially on this patient's preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, a retrospective review demonstrated hypointense foci in the rectovesical pouch. Here, we describe the first reported case of visualization of dropped gallstones on a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and retrieval during robotic prostatectomy.

Prostate biopsy is the gold standard diagnostic technique for the detection of prostate cancer. Patient selection for prostate biopsy is complex and is influenced by emerging use of prebiopsy imaging. The introduction of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy has clear advantages over the historical standard of care. There are several biopsy techniques currently utilized with unique advantages and disadvantages. We review and summarize the current body of literature pertaining to when and how a prostate biopsy should be performed. We discuss current recommendations regarding patient selection for biopsy and discuss future directions regarding prebiopsy imaging. We offer a description of the MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy technique and a comparison of many of the currently available fusion software platforms. Articles pertaining to the title were obtained via PubMed index search with relevant keywords supplemented with personal collection of related publications. Prostate biopsy should be considered for patients with gross digital rectal exam (DRE) abnormality, patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) greater than 4 ng/ml, and concomitant risk factors for prostate cancer or patients with lesions identified on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 2 (PI-RADS2) score of 4 or 5. MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy has demonstrated advantages in cancer detection when compared with TRUS-guided biopsy. There are currently several fusion software platforms available with a variety of biopsy approaches. Future efforts should detail the role of prebiopsy imaging as a triage tool for prostate biopsy. Consensus should be sought regarding the preferred modality of fusion biopsy. Additional data describing each fusion software platform would enable a more rigorous comparison of platform sensitivities.

Background Extra-adrenal paragangliomas (PGLs) are infrequent, benign, and neuroendocrine tumors arising from chromaffin cells of the autonomic nervous system. Most PGLs are sporadic, but up to 32% are associated with inherited syndromes such as neurofibromatosis type 1, von Hippel-Lindau disease, and familial PGL. Although most PGLs develop above the umbilicus, they have been reported in the genitourinary (GU) tract. Owing to the paucity of literature on the rates of GU PGL, the objective of our study is to describe the demographic, pathologic, and clinical characteristics of GU PGL, and compare them to non-GU sites of PGL using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database. Methods The SEER 18 database was used to identify all cases of PGL from 2000 to 2012. Demographic, pathologic, and clinical characteristics were described using chi-square and t -test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare overall survival (OS) between GU and non-GU PGL. Statistical significance was defined as P Results A total of 299 cases of PGL were retrieved from SEER, and 20 (6.7%) of the total PGL arose from the GU tract. The mean age at diagnosis was higher in non-GU than GU PGL (50.4±17.2 vs. 40.8±15.6, P = 0.026). Furthermore, 75% of GU PGLs developed in the bladder, followed by the kidneys/renal pelvis, and spermatic cord (20%). Non-GU PGL developed most frequently within the endocrine system (43%). PGL, overall, was more common in men than in women, and it was more common in whites than all other races. Although 55.5% of GU PGLs were organ confined, only 22.2% of non-GU PGLs were localized at diagnosis. All cases of PGL were treated with surgery. There were 2 cause-specific deaths in the GU PGL groups between 2000 and 2012. The 5-year OS was 93.3% for GU PGL vs. 65.5% in non-GU PGL ( P = 0.062). Conclusions GU PGL remains rare with low incidence (6.7% of all PGL cases) in the US population between 2000 and 2012. Bladder PGL represents just 5% of all PGL. Moreover, GU PGL had better OS compared to PGL developing outside of the GU tract although the P -value only approached statistical significance. The bladder represents the most common site of involvement, and surgery is the mainstay of treatment for GU PGL. Clearer prognostic factors, including tumor grade and stage, are needed to better elucidate PGL management in the future; thus, pooled studies from various institutions with detailed clinical information are needed to delineate these prognostic factors.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy detect more high risk prostate cancer and less low risk prostate cancer than systematic biopsy. However, there remains a small subset of patients in whom systematic biopsy captures higher grade disease than fusion biopsy. We sought to identify potential mechanisms of the failure of fusion biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.We reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by fusion biopsy and systematic biopsy from 2007 to 2014. In patients in whom disease was upgraded to clinically significant disease (Gleason 7 or greater) by systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy, independent re-review of magnetic resonance imaging, archived biopsy imaging and whole mount pathology as well as needle coordinate mapping were performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy.Disease was upgraded based on systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy in 135 of 1,003 patients (13.5%), of whom only 62 (6.2%) were upgraded to intermediate (Gleason 7) and high risk (Gleason 8 or greater) prostate cancer (51 or 5.1% and 11 or 1.1%, respectively). On multivariate analysis lower prostate specific antigen (p0.001), higher magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume (p0.001) and a lower number of target cores (p = 0.001) were predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. Main mechanisms of under grading by fusion biopsy included multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reader oversight, presence of magnetic resonance imaging invisible cancer, fusion biopsy technique error and intralesion Gleason heterogeneity.Magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy rarely missed clinically significant prostate cancer as only 62 of 1,003 cases (6.2%) were upgraded to clinically significant disease by systematic biopsy. Imaging and biopsy techniques are continually refined. Further studies will help clarify mechanisms of fusion biopsy failure and the patient populations that benefit from systematic biopsy in addition to fusion biopsy.

Introduction and objective Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance (MR) -targeted biopsy have a growing role in the screening and evaluation of prostate cancer. We aim to evaluate the current knowledge, attitude, and practice patterns of urologists regarding this new technique. Methods An anonymous online questionnaire was designed to collect information on urologists’ beliefs and use of prostate multiparametric MRI and MR-targeted biopsy. The survey was sent to members of the Society of Urologic Oncology, the Endourological Society, and European Association of Urology. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors for use of prostate MRI and MR-targeted biopsy. Results A total of 302 responses were received (Endourological Society: 175, European Association of Urology: 23, and Society of Urologic Oncology: 104). Most respondents (83.6%) believe MR-targeted biopsy to be moderately to extremely beneficial in the evaluation of prostate cancer. Overall, 85.7% of responders use prostate MRI in their practice, and 63.0% use MR-targeted biopsy. The 2 most common settings for use of MR-targeted biopsy include patients with history of prior negative biopsy result (96.3%) and monitoring patients on active surveillance (72.5%). In those who do not use MR-targeted biopsy, the principal reasons were lack of necessary infrastructure (64.1%) and prohibitive costs (48.1%). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, practice in an academic setting (1.86 [1.02–3.40], P = 0.043) and performing greater than 25 radical prostatectomies per year (2.32 [1.18–4.56], P = 0.015) remained independent predictors for using MR-targeted biopsy. Conclusions Most respondents of our survey look favorably on use of prostate MRI and MR-targeted biopsy in clinical practice. Over time, reduction in fixed costs and easier access to equipment may lead to further dissemination of this novel and potentially transformative technology.