Search

Introduction: Focal therapy (FT) ablates areas of prostate cancer rather than treating the whole gland. We compared oncological outcomes of FT to radical prostatectomy (RP)., Methods: Using prospective multicentre databases of 761 FT and 572 RP cases (November/2005-September/2018), patients with PSA < 20 ng/ml, Gleason 

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 < 0.0001). Further work on assessing actual G4 burden calibrated to clinical outcomes might lead to the use of differing G4 thresholds of significance if the visual estimation is used or by incorporating semi-automated methods for G4 burden measurement.

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) is established in the diagnosis of prostate cancer, but the need for enhanced sequences has recently been questioned., Objective: To assess whether dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) improves accuracy over T2 and diffusion sequences., Design, Setting, and Participants: PROMIS was a multicentre, multireader trial, with, in this part, 497 biopsy-naïve men undergoing standardised 1.5T MP-MRI using T2, diffusion, and DCE, followed by a detailed transperineal prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy at 5 mm intervals. Likert scores of 1-5 for the presence of a significant tumour were assigned in strict sequence, for (1) T2 + diffusion and then (2) T2 + diffusion + dynamic contrast-enhanced images., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: For the primary analysis, the primary PROMIS outcome measure (Gleason score ≥4 + 3 or ≥6 mm maximum cancer length) on TPM was used, and an MRI score of ≥3 was considered positive., Results and Limitations: Sensitivity without and with DCE was 94% and 95%, specificity 37% and 38%, positive predictive value 51% and 51%, and negative predictive value 90% and 91%, respectively (p >  0.05 in each case). The number of patients avoiding biopsy (scoring 1-2) was similar (123/497 vs 121/497, p =  0.8). The number of equivocal scores (3/5) was slightly higher without DCE (32% vs 28% p =  0.031). The proportion of MRI equivocal (3/5) and positive (4-5) cases showing significant tumours were similar (23% and 71% vs 20% and 69%). No cases of dominant Gleason 4 or higher were missed with DCE, compared with a single case with T2 + diffusion-weighted imaging. No attempt was made to correlate lesion location on MRI and histology, which may be considered a limitation. Radiologists were aware of the patient's prostate-specific antigen., Conclusions: Contrast adds little when MP-MRI is used to exclude significant prostate cancer., Patient Summary: An intravenous injection of contrast may not be necessary when magnetic resonance imaging is used as a test to rule out significant tumours in the prostate., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Prostate biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to obtain tissue from men with suspected prostate cancer (PC)., Objective: To report a multicentre series of image-fusion transperineal prostate biopsies and compare the diagnostic yield of clinically significant PC (csPC) between targeted and nontargeted biopsies., Design, Setting, and Participants: The study included 640 consecutive patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) presenting for first biopsy or following a previous negative transrectal biopsy under the care of 13 urologists in 11 centres in the UK (April 2014-June 2017)., Intervention: Multiparametric MRI was carried out in 61 approved prostate MRI centres with transperineal targeted alone (n=283) or targeted plus nontargeted (n=357) transperineal rigid image-fusion targeted biopsy (MIM-Symphony-DX)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Rates of csPC and insignificant cancer detection in targeted and nontargeted biopsies were measured using a number of thresholds to define clinical significance. The primary definition was Gleason≥4+3 or any grade ≥6mm., Results and Limitations: The mean age, median PSA, and median prostate volume for the cohort were 63.8yr (standard deviation [SD] 8.4), 6.3 ng/ml (SD 5.8), and 42.0cm 3 (SD 24.7), respectively. Overall, 276/640 men (43.1%) were diagnosed with csPC. csPC was detected from targeted biopsies alone in 263/640 cases (41.1%). Of the 357 men who underwent nontargeted biopsies, three (0.8%) had csPC exclusively in nontargeted cores, with no evidence of cancer in targeted cores. Overall, 32/357 (9.0%) had csPC in nontargeted biopsies regardless of the targeted biopsy findings. Clinically insignificant disease in nontargeted biopsies was detected in 93/357 men (26.1%). Our findings were consistent across all other thresholds of clinical significance. Limitations include the lack of nontargeted biopsies in all men., Conclusions: In this large multicentre series, nontargeted prostate biopsy cores had a low yield of csPC and a high yield of clinically insignificant PC. An image-fusion targeted-biopsy-only approach maintains high detection for csPC and low detection of clinically insignificant cancers., Patient Summary: In this report, we found that following prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted transperineal biopsies of suspicious areas, the clinical value of performing additional extensive unguided biopsies of nonsuspicious areas is limited and can often find insignificant cancers that do not need treatment., (Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We evaluated the performance of transrectal ultrasound guided systematic and transperineal template mapping biopsies with a 5 mm sampling frame stratified by the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert score in the PROMIS (Prostate MR Imaging Study)., Materials and Methods: Biopsy naïve men due to undergo prostate biopsy for elevated prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and transperineal template mapping and transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsies, which were performed and reported while blinded to other test results. Clinically significant prostate cancer was primarily defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater, or a maximum cancer core length of 6 mm or more of any grade. It was secondarily defined as Gleason 3 + 4 or greater, or a maximum cancer core length of 4 mm or more of any grade., Results: In 41 months 740 men were recruited at a total of 11 centers, of whom 576 underwent all 3 tests. Eight of the 150 men (5.1%) with a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score of 1-2 had any Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy. Of the 75 men in whom transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy showed Gleason 3 + 3 of any maximum cancer core length 61 (81%) had Gleason 3 + 4, 8 (11%) had Gleason 4 + 3 and 0 (0%) had Gleason 4 + 5 or greater disease. For definition 1 (clinically significant prostate cancer) transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy sensitivity remained stable and low across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert scores of 35% to 52%. For definition 2 (clinically significant prostate cancer and any cancer) sensitivity increased with higher multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. The negative predictive value varied due to varying disease prevalence but for all cancer thresholds it declined with increasing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores., Conclusions: In the setting of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging Likert scores 1-2 transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy revealed Gleason 3 + 4 disease in only 1 of 20 men. Further, for any clinically significant prostate cancer definition transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy had poor sensitivity and variable but a low negative predictive value across multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scores. Men who undergo transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsy without targeting in the setting of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score of 3 to 5 should be advised to undergo repeat (targeted) biopsy.

Purpose: To define the role of focal laser ablation (FLA) as clinical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) using the Delphi consensus method., Methods: A panel of international experts in the field of focal therapy (FT) in PCa conducted a collaborative consensus project using the Delphi method. Experts were invited to online questionnaires focusing on patient selection and treatment of PCa with FLA during four subsequent rounds. After each round, outcomes were displayed, and questionnaires were modified based on the comments provided by panelists. Results were finalized and discussed during face-to-face meetings., Results: Thirty-seven experts agreed to participate, and consensus was achieved on 39/43 topics. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as any volume Grade Group 2 [Gleason score (GS) 3+4]. Focal therapy was specified as treatment of all csPCa and can be considered primary treatment as an alternative to radical treatment in carefully selected patients. In patients with intermediate-risk PCa (GS 3+4) as well as patients with MRI-visible and biopsy-confirmed local recurrence, FLA is optimal for targeted ablation of a specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible focus. However, FLA should not be applied to candidates for active surveillance and close follow-up is required. Suitability for FLA is based on tumor volume, location to vital structures, GS, MRI-visibility, and biopsy confirmation., Conclusion: Focal laser ablation is a promising technique for treatment of clinically localized PCa and should ideally be performed within approved clinical trials. So far, only few studies have reported on FLA and further validation with longer follow-up is mandatory before widespread clinical implementation is justified.

Objective: To 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 Methods: PART 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., Results: Initially 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., Conclusion: Although 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., (© 2018 The Authors BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT)., Objectives: To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture., Design: We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation., Setting: Five NHS hospitals in England., Participants: Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa., Interventions: Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU., Primary Outcome Measure: The randomisation of 80 men., Secondary Outcome Measures: Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods., Results: Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and 'tips' documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) - with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants - than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only., Conclusions: Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted., Future Work: Men recruited to the feasibility study will be followed up for 36 months in accordance with the protocol. We will design a full RCT, taking into account the lessons learnt from this study. CRFs will be streamlined, and the length and frequency of PROMs and resource use diaries will be reviewed to reduce the burden on patients and research nurses and to optimise data completeness., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99760303., 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. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Ray Fitzpatrick is a member of the Health Technology Assessment Priority Research Advisory Methods Group. Richard Hindley has received payments for lecturing and proctoring for SonaCare Medical (Charlotte, NC, USA; high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment). Hashim U Ahmed reports grants and personal fees from SonaCare Medical and grants from Trod Medical (Heverlee, Belgium) and Sophiris Bio Inc. (La Jolla, CA, USA) outside the submitted work.

Objectives: The rationale for directing targeted biopsy towards the centre of lesions has been questioned in light of prostate cancer grade heterogeneity. In this study, we assess the assumption that the maximum cancer Gleason grade (Gleason grade hotspot) lies within the maximum dimension (volume hotspot) of a prostate cancer lesion., Methods: 3-D histopathological models were reconstructed using the outputs of the 5-mm transperineal mapping (TPM) biopsies used as the reference test in the pilot phase of Prostate Mri Imaging Study (PROMIS), a paired validating cohort study investigating the performance of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) against transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsies. The prostate was fully sampled with 5 mm intervals; each core was separately labelled, inked and orientated in space to register 3-D cancer lesions location. The data from the histopathology results were used to create a 3-D interpolated reconstruction of each lesion and identify the spatial coordinates of the largest dimension (volume hot spot) and highest Gleason grade (Gleason grade hotspot) and assess their concordance., Results: Ninety-four men, with median age 62 years (interquartile range, IQR= 58-68) and median PSA 6.5 ng ml(-1) (4.6-8.8), had a median of 80 (I69-89) cores each with a median of 4.5 positive cores (0-12). In the primary analysis, the prevalence of homogeneous lesions was 148 (76%; 95% confidence interval (CI) ±6.0%). In all, 184 (94±3.2%) lesions showed concordant hotspots and 11/47 (23±12.1%) of heterogeneous lesions showed discordant hotspots. The median 3-D distance between discordant hotspots was 12.8 mm (9.9-15.5). These figures remained stable on secondary analyses using alternative reconstructive assumptions. Limitations include a certain degree of error within reconstructed models., Conclusions: Guiding one biopsy needle to the maximum cancer diameter would lead to correct Gleason grade attribution in 94% of all lesions and 79% of heterogeneous ones if a true hit was obtained. Further correlation of histological lesions, their MRI appearance and the detectability of these hotspots on MRI will be undertaken once PROMIS results are released.

Purpose: Transrectal prostate biopsies are inaccurate and, thus, the prevalence of clinically significant prostate cancer in men undergoing biopsy is unknown. We determined the ability of different histological thresholds to denote clinically significant cancer in men undergoing a more accurate biopsy, that of transperineal template prostate mapping., Materials and Methods: In this multicenter, cross-sectional cohort of men who underwent template prostate mapping biopsies between May 2006 and January 2012, 4 different thresholds of significance combining tumor grade and burden were used to measure the consequent variation with respect to the prevalence of clinically significant disease., Results: Of 1,203 men 17% (199) had no previous biopsy, 38% (455) had a prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsy, 24% (289) were on active surveillance and 21% (260) were seeking risk stratification. Mean patient age was 63.5 years (SD 7.6) and median prostate specific antigen was 7.4 ng/ml (IQR 5.3-10.5). Overall 35% of the patients (424) had no cancer detected. The prevalence of clinically significant cancer varied between 14% and 83% according to the histological threshold used, in particular between 30% and 51% among men who had no previous biopsy, between 14% and 27% among men who had a prior negative biopsy, between 36% and 74% among men on active surveillance, and between 47% and 83% among men seeking risk stratification., Conclusions: According to template prostate mapping biopsy between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 men have prostate cancer that is histologically defined as clinically significant. This suggests that the commonly used thresholds may be set too low., (Copyright © 2016 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies are prone to detection errors. Multi-parametric MRI (MP-MRI) may improve the diagnostic pathway., Methods: PROMIS is a prospective validating paired-cohort study that meets criteria for level 1 evidence in diagnostic test evaluation. PROMIS will investigate whether multi-parametric (MP)-MRI can discriminate between men with and without clinically-significant prostate cancer who are at risk prior to first biopsy. Up to 714 men will have MP-MRI (index), 10-12 core TRUS-biopsy (standard) and 5mm transperineal template mapping (TPM) biopsies (reference). The conduct and reporting of each test will be blinded to the others., Results: PROMIS will measure and compare sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of both MP-MRI and TRUS-biopsy against TPM biopsies. The MP-MRI results will be used to determine the proportion of men who could safely avoid biopsy without compromising detection of clinically-significant cancers. For the primary outcome, significant cancer on TPM is defined as Gleason grade >/= 4+3 and/or maximum cancer core length of ≥ 6 mm. PROMIS will also assess inter-observer variability among radiologists among other secondary outcomes. Cost-effectiveness of MP-MRI prior to biopsy will also be evaluated., Conclusions: PROMIS will determine whether MP-MRI of the prostate prior to first biopsy improves the detection accuracy of clinically-significant cancer., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Focal therapy as a treatment option for localized prostate cancer (PCa) is an increasingly popular and rapidly evolving field., Objective: To gather expert opinion on patient selection, interventions, and meaningful outcome measures for focal therapy in clinical practice and trial design., Design, Setting, and Participants: Fifteen experts in focal therapy followed a modified two-stage RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology process. All participants independently scored 246 statements prior to rescoring at a face-to-face meeting. The meeting occurred in June 2013 at the Royal Society of Medicine, London, supported by the Wellcome Trust and the UK Department of Health., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Agreement, disagreement, or uncertainty were calculated as the median panel score. Consensus was derived from the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry level., Results and Limitations: Of 246 statements, 154 (63%) reached consensus. Items of agreement included the following: patients with intermediate risk and patients with unifocal and multifocal PCa are eligible for focal treatment; magnetic resonance imaging-targeted or template-mapping biopsy should be used to plan treatment; planned treatment margins should be 5mm from the known tumor; prostate volume or age should not be a primary determinant of eligibility; foci of indolent cancer can be left untreated when treating the dominant index lesion; histologic outcomes should be defined by targeted biopsy at 1 yr; residual disease in the treated area of ≤3 mm of Gleason 3+3 did not need further treatment; and focal retreatment rates of ≤20% should be considered clinically acceptable but subsequent whole-gland therapy deemed a failure of focal therapy. All statements are expert opinion and therefore constitute level 5 evidence and may not reflect wider clinical consensus., Conclusions: The landscape of PCa treatment is rapidly evolving with new treatment technologies. This consensus meeting provides guidance to clinicians on current expert thinking in the field of focal therapy., Patient Summary: In this report we present expert opinion on patient selection, interventions, and meaningful outcomes for clinicians working in focal therapy for prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Focal therapy offers the possibility of cancer control, without the side effect profile of radical therapies. Early single centre prospective development studies using high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) have demonstrated encouraging genitourinary functional preservation and short-term cancer control. Large multi-centre trials are required to evaluate medium-term cancer control and reproduce functional recovery. We describe the study design of an investigator-led UK multi-centre, single arm trial using HIFU to deliver focal therapy for men with localised prostate cancer., Methods: One-hundred and forty men with histologically proven localised low or intermediate risk prostate cancer (PSA < 15, Gleason ≤ 7, ≤ T2cN0M0) will undergo precise characterisation of the prostate using a combination of multi-parametric (mp)MRI and transperineal template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsies. Unilateral dominant tumours, the so-called index lesion, will be eligible for treatment provided the contra-lateral side is free of 'clinically significant' disease (as defined by Gleason ≥ 7 or maximum cancer core length ≥4 mm). Patients will receive focal therapy using HIFU (Sonablate 500®). Treatment effect will be assessed by targeted biopsies of the treated area and TPM biopsies at 36-months., Results: Primary outcome is the absence of clinically significant disease based on 36-month post-treatment TPM biopsies. Secondary outcomes address a) genitourinary function using validated patient questionnaires (IPSS, IPSS-QoL, IIEF-15, EPIC-Urinary, EPIC-Bowel, FACT-P, EQ-5D), b) the predictive validity of imaging, and c) risk factors for treatment failure., Conclusions: INDEX will be the first multi-centre, medium term follow-up trial to evaluate the outcomes of a tissue preserving strategy for men with localised prostate cancer using the TPM-ablate-TPM strategy., (Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most common cause of cancer related death in men. A number of key limitations with prostate specific antigen (PSA), currently the standard detection test, has justified evaluation of new biomarkers. We have assessed the diagnostic potential of Engrailed-2 (EN2) protein, a homeodomain-containing transcription factor expressed in PC cell lines and secreted into the urine by PC in men., Experimental Design: EN2 expression in PC cell lines and prostate cancer tissue was determined by semi-quantative RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry. First pass urine [without prior digital rectal examination (DRE)] was collected from men presenting with urinary symptoms (referred to exclude/confirm the presence of prostate cancer) and from controls. EN2 protein was measured by ELISA in urine from men with PC (n = 82) and controls (n = 102)., Results: EN2 was expressed and secreted by PC cell lines and PC tissue but not by normal prostate tissue or stroma. The presence of EN2 in urine was highly predictive of PC, with a sensitivity of 66% and a specificity of 88.2%, without requirement for DRE. There was no correlation with PSA levels. These results were confirmed independently by a second academic center., Conclusions: Urinary EN2 is a highly specific and sensitive candidate biomarker of prostate cancer. A larger multicenter study to further evaluate the diagnostic potential of EN2 is justified., (©2011 AACR.)

Objective: To investigate the accuracy and use of body-coil magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the local staging of prostate cancer before radical prostatectomy (RP)., Patients and Methods: Fifty-six patients undergoing RP were staged before surgery using body-coil MRI; none was denied surgery on the basis of their scan results. All scans were reported before RP by one of three consultant radiologists and afterward by a colleague with a special interest in prostate MRI, unaware of the patients' clinical details., Results: The overall sensitivity of MRI at detecting extracapsular extension was 50% on general reporting and 72% when reported by the specialist radiologist; the respective specificities were 84% and 86%. Of the 55 patients included in the study, 18 (33%) had extracapsular disease on histological analysis. MRI was most accurate in the 17 patients at high-risk (prostate-specific antigen, PSA, >10 ng/mL and Gleason score >or= 8) and eight at intermediate risk (PSA < 10 ng/mL and Gleason score 7). In the former group with specialist analysis, the sensitivity was 100%, although this decreased to 67% with general reporting. Both gave a specificity of 82%. Intermediate risk disease gave a sensitivity and specificity of 75%, irrespective of reporting method. The ability of MRI to detect extraprostatic tumour in the 30 low-risk patients (PSA < 10 ng/mL and Gleason score 2-6) was poor; the sensitivity was 25% with general and 50% on specialist review, although both methods gave a specificity of >90%., Conclusion: Body-coil MRI is sensitive and specific for identifying extracapsular extension of prostate cancer in patients with high- or intermediate-risk disease. Patients at low risk frequently have microscopic extension which is not detected. Opinion from a radiologist with a special interest in prostate MRI can increase the reporting accuracy even when unaware of the patients' clinical details.

Objective: To assess the 2-year symptomatic and urodynamic results of a prospective randomized trial of interstitial radiofrequency therapy of the prostate (IRFT) vs transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)., Patients and Methods: Patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and urodynamic evidence of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) were randomized to undergo IRFT or TURP and were followed up using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and urodynamic assessment for 2 years., Results: At 2 years there was a clinically relevant reduction in the IPSS in the IRFT (20 to 9) and TURP groups (22 to 4). There was also a statistically significant reduction in the detrusor pressure at maximum urinary flow in both groups, but the reduction in the IRFT group was probably not sufficient to explain the observed symptomatic improvements solely from a reduction in BOO., Conclusion: IRFT can produce a sustained improvement in LUTS for at least 2 years. However, such improvements are unlikely to be entirely the result of a reduction in BOO. The effects of radiofrequency energy may, at least partly, be independent of any thermal effect and depend instead on neuromodulation of lower urinary tract nerves.