Search

Background and objective: Collagen biosynthesis is intricately involved in the development and progression of solid tumors. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) impede TGF-β-mediated collagen synthesis in tumors by hindering activation of the angiotensin receptor. Our aim was to investigate a potential association between RASi use and the aggressiveness of prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter analysis for a cohort of 1250 patients with PCa who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) between 1990 and 2023 in four European high-volume centers. The study cohort comprised 625 RASi-treated patients and 625 age-matched RASi-naïve patients. Data for various parameters were collected, including age at RP, body mass index (BMI), prostate volume, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), percentage of free PSA, Gleason score (GS) at biopsy and RP, TNM stage, and the rate of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Clinical parameters for patients with and without RASi treatment were documented. Differences between the groups were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 tests. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Key findings and limitations: As expected, the RASi group had higher BMI levels than the RASi-naïve group (p

Background and objective: More than 10% of patients with negative clinical metastatic status (cN0M0) on conventional imaging for prostate cancer (PCa) harbor lymph node involvement (pN+) at final pathology following radical prostatectomy (RP) and lymphadenectomy. Our aim was to assess outcomes of initial observation for cN0M0 pN+ PCa and identify prognostic factors that may help in clinical decision-making. Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter study of patients with cN0M0 PCa on conventional imaging (computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging, and a bone scan) who were found to have pN+ disease at RP between 2000 and 2021. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) and systemic progression/recurrence were the primary outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model were used for survival and multivariate analysis. Key findings and limitations: A total of 469 men were included in this retrospective multicenter trial. Median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 10.1 ng/ml (interquartile range [IQR] 6.6–18.0). Among these patients, 56% had grade group ≥4, 53.7% had stage ≥pT3b, 42.6% had positive margins, and 19.6% had PSA persistence. The median number of positive nodes and of nodes removed were 1 (IQR 1–3) and 20 (14–28), respectively. At median follow-up of 41 mo, 48.5% experienced BCR. The 5-yr BCR-free survival rate was 31.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.33–37.1%). Salvage treatments were needed in 211 patients and included radiotherapy (RT; n = 53), RT + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; n = 88), ADT alone (n = 68), and salvage lymphadenectomy (n = 2). The 5-yr estimated survival rates were 66.3% (95% CI 60.4–72.1) for metastasis-free survival, 97.7% (95% CI 95.5–99.8%) for cancer-specific survival, and 95.3% (95% CI 92.4–98.1%) for overall survival. On multivariable analysis, PSA persistence was an independent predictor of BCR (odds ratio [OR] 51.8, 95% CI 12.2–219.2), exit from observation (OR 8.5, 95% CI 4.4–16.5), and systemic progression (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.771–4.971). Conclusions: Initial observation in the management of pN+ cN0M0 PCa is feasible and has excellent survival rates in the intermediate term. Patients with worse disease features, especially PSA persistence, have a higher likelihood of recurrence and progression and may be candidates for more aggressive upfront management. Patient summary: We investigated the value of initial observation for men with prostate cancer with negative scan findings for metastasis who were then found to have positive lymph nodes after surgery to remove the prostate. Our results show that initial observation is a good option for patients with less aggressive prostate cancer features.

Background and objective: Patients diagnosed with grade group (GG) 1 prostate cancer (PCa) following treatment for benign disease (“incidental” PCa) are typically managed with active surveillance (AS). It is not known how their outcomes compare with those observed in patients diagnosed with GG1 on biopsy. We aimed at determining whether long-term oncologic outcomes of AS for patients with GG1 PCa differ according to the type of diagnosis: incidental versus biopsy detected. Methods: A retrospective, multi-institutional analysis of PCa patients with GG1 on AS at eight institutions was conducted. Competing risk analyses estimated the incidence of metastases, PCa mortality, and conversion to treatment. As a secondary analysis, we estimated the risk of GG ≥2 on the first follow-up biopsy according to the type of initial diagnosis. Key findings and limitations: A total of 213 versus 1900 patients with incidental versus biopsy-diagnosed GG1 were identified. Patients with incidental cancers were followed with repeated biopsies and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging less frequently than those diagnosed on biopsy. The 10-yr incidence of treatment was 22% for incidental cancers versus 53% for biopsy (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26–0.46, p

Background and objective: The purpose-built SHURUI single-port (SP) robotic platform has recently been introduced for several procedures in urology, general surgery, and gynecology. However, comparative evidence on its performance in relation to earlier models such as the da Vinci SP is lacking. Our aim was to compare the step-by-step techniques and 1-yr outcomes for radical prostatectomy (RP) between the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP robots. Methods: Data were retrieved from two prospectively maintained databases. The SHURUI SP robot was used to perform RP in 34 patients in China (September 2021 to August 2022); the da Vinci SP robot was used to perform 100 consecutive RP cases in the USA (June 2019 to October 2020). A comparative analysis was conducted before and after 1:1 propensity score matching for age, body mass index, American Urological Association symptom score, prostate size, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, biopsy grade group, and D’Amico risk group. Intraoperative performance and short-term oncological and continence outcomes were compared between the groups. Biochemical recurrence was defined as two consecutive postoperative PSA levels >0.2 ng/ml. Continence was defined as full recovery of urinary control without the use of pads. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate continence recovery curves, and a log-rank test for trend was used to detect ordered differences in continence recovery between the SHURUI SP and da Vinci SP groups after surgery. Key findings and limitations: For the matched SHURUI and da Vinci groups, median age (69 vs 69 yr), median PSA (8.4 vs 7.1 ng/ml), and the proportion of patients with low-risk (33.3% vs 29.6%), intermediate-risk (66.7% vs 63%), and high-risk disease (0% vs 7.4%) were comparable (all p > 0.05). All surgeries were successfully accomplished without conversion. A higher percentage of cases in the SHURUI group involved extraperitoneal access (81.5% vs 0%; p

Background and objective: The shift toward targeted biopsy (TBx) aims at enhancing prostate cancer (PCa) detection while reducing overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant disease. Despite the improved ability of TBx in identifying clinically significant PCa (csPCa), the optimal number and location of targeted cores remain unclear. This review aims to assess the optimal number of prostate biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted cores to detect csPCa. Methods: A narrative literature search was conducted using PubMed, focusing on studies published between January 2014 and January 2024, addressing factors influencing targeted core numbers during prostate biopsy. The search included both retrospective and prospective studies, prioritizing those with substantial sample sizes and employing terms such as “prostate biopsy”, “mpMRI”, “core number”, and “cancer detection”. Key findings and limitations: Two biopsy cores identified csPCa in 55–65% of cases. This detection rate improved to approximately 90% when the number of cores was ≥5. The inclusion of perilesional and systematic biopsies could maximize the detection of csPCa (from 10% to 45%), especially in patients under active surveillance or with prior negative biopsy results, although there is an increase in the overdiagnosis of indolent tumors (from 4% to 20%). Transperineal software-assisted target prostate biopsy may enhance cancer detection, particularly for tumors located at the apex/anterior part of the prostate. Increasing the number of TBx cores may incrementally raise the risk of complications (by 2–14% with each added core) and result in severe pain and significant discomfort for up to 17% and 25% of TBx patients, respectively. However, the overall rate and severity of these complications remain within acceptable limits. Conclusions and clinical implications: The optimal number of cores for targeted prostate biopsies should balance minimizing sampling errors with effective cancer detection and should be tailored to each patient’s unique prostate characteristics. Up to five cores per MRI target may be considered to enhance the detection of csPCa, with adjustments based on factors such as prostate and lesion volume, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, biopsy techniques, complications, patient discomfort, and anxiety. Patient summary: In this report, we found that increasing the number of biopsy cores up to ≥5 improves the detection rates of significant prostate cancer significantly to around 90%. Although inclusion of nearby and systematic biopsies enhances detection, increasing the biopsy count may lead to higher risks of complications and indolent tumors. A customized biopsy approach based on multiple variables could be helpful in determining the appropriate number of targeted biopsies on a case-by-case basis.

Background and objective: The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Despite this, the optimal therapy for patients with mPCa has not been determined. This systematic review identifies available predictive models that assess mPCa patients’ response to treatment. Methods: We critically reviewed MEDLINE and CENTRAL in December 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Only quantitative studies in English were included with no time restrictions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were extracted following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews criteria. Key findings and limitations: The search identified 616 citations, of which 15 studies were included in our review. Nine of the included studies were validated internally or externally. Only one study had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Many studies failed to detail model performance adequately, resulting in a high risk of bias. Where reported, the models indicated good or excellent performance. Conclusions and clinical implications: Most of the identified predictive models require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before these can be implemented in clinical practice to assist with treatment decision-making for men with mPCa. Patient summary: In this review, we evaluate studies that predict which treatments will work best for which metastatic prostate cancer patients. We found that existing studies need further improvement before these can be used by health care professionals.

Background and objective: The ability of health care professionals to communicate with patients compassionately and effectively is crucial for shared decision-making, but little research has investigated patient-clinician communication. As part of PIONEER—an international Big Data Consortium led by the European Association of Urology to answer key questions for men with prostate cancer (PCa), funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777492— we investigated communication between men diagnosed with PCa and the health care professional(s) treating them across Europe. Methods: We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Communication 26, which was shared via the PIONEER and patient organisations on March 11, 2022. We sought men who spoke French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, or English who were diagnosed with PCa and were undergoing or had already received treatment for their PCa. Results and limitations: A total of 372 men reported that they communicated with their clinician during either the diagnostic or the treatment period. Overall, the majority of participants reported positive experiences. However, important opportunities to enhance communication were identified, particularly with regard to correcting misunderstandings, understanding the patient’s preferred approach to information presentation, addressing challenging questions, supporting the patient’s comprehension of information, attending to the patient’s emotional needs, and assessing what information had already been given to patients about their disease and treatment, and how much of it was understood. Conclusions and clinical implications: These results help us to identify gaps and barriers to shared treatment decision making. This knowledge will help devise measures to improve patient-health care professional communication in the PCa setting. Patient summary: As part of the PIONEER initiative, we investigated the communication between men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their health care professionals across Europe. A total of 372 men from six different countries participated in the study. Most participants reported positive experiences, but areas where communication could be improved were identified. These included addressing misunderstandings, tailoring the presentation of information to the patient’s preferences, handling difficult questions, supporting emotional needs, and assessing the patient’s understanding of their diagnosis and treatment.

Cancer survivorship was recently identified as a prostate cancer (PCa) research priority by PIONEER, a European network of excellence for big data in PCa. Despite being a research priority, cancer survivorship lacks a clear and agreed definition, and there is a distinct paucity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available on the subject. Data collection on cancer survivorship depends on the availability and implementation of (validated) routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There have been recent advances in the availability of such PROMs. For instance, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) is developing survivorship questionnaires. This provides an excellent first step in improving the data available on cancer survivorship. However, we propose that an agreed, standardised definition of (prostate) cancer survivorship must first be established. Only then can real-world data on survivorship be collected to strengthen our knowledge base. With more men than ever surviving PCa, this type of research is imperative to ensure that the quality of life of these men is considered as much as their quantity of life. Patient summary: As there are more prostate cancer survivors than ever before, research into cancer survivorship is crucial. We highlight the importance of such research and provide recommendations on how to carry it out. The first step should be establishing agreement on a standardised definition of survivorship. From this, patient-reported outcome measures can then be used to collect important survivorship data.

Abstract Active surveillance has been proposed as a therapeutic option in selected intermediate risk patients with biopsy grade group 2 prostate cancer. However, its oncologic safety in this setting is debated. Therefore, we conducted a non-systematic literature research of contemporary surveillance protocols including patients with grade group 2 disease to collect the most recent evidence in this setting. Although no randomized controlled trial compared curative-intent treatments, namely radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy vs. active surveillance in patients with grade group 2 disease, surgery is associated with a benefit in terms of disease control and survival when compared to expectant management in the intermediate risk setting. Patients with grade group 2 on active surveillance were at higher risk of disease progression and treatment compared to their grade group 1 counterparts. Up to 50% of those patients were eventually treated at 5 years, and the metastases-free survival rate was as low as 85% at 15-years. When considering low- and intermediate risk patients treated with radical prostatectomy, grade group 2 was one of the strongest predictors of grade upgrading and adverse features. Available data is insufficient to support the oncologic safety of active surveillance in all men with grade group 2 prostate cancer. Therefore, those patients should be counselled regarding the oncologic efficacy of upfront active treatment modalities and the lack of robust long-term data supporting the safety of active surveillance in this setting.

Prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduces prostate cancer mortality at the cost of unnecessary prostate biopsy, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment. Several secondary tests have been developed to restrict biopsy to men at the greatest risk of high-grade disease. 4Kscore is a widely used secondary test that has been shown to reduce biopsy rates by approximately two-thirds in routine clinical practice. We estimated how 4Kscore implementation has affected cancer trends in the US population. We combined data from the US validation study of 4Kscore with data from the diagnostic test impact study, using a basis of 70 000 on-label 4Kscore tests performed annually. We estimate that each year, 4Kscore leads to 45 200 fewer biopsies and 9400 fewer overdiagnoses of low-grade cancer, at the cost of delayed diagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer for 3450 patients, of whom two-thirds have International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 disease. These findings need to be taken into consideration when studying epidemiologic trends in prostate cancer. They also suggest that high levels of overdiagnosis and overtreatment are not inevitable characteristics of PSA screening, but can be mitigated by additional tests. Patient summary: We estimate that use of a test called 4Kscore to predict the probability that a patient has high-grade prostate cancer has significantly reduced the number of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of low-grade cancer in the USA. These decisions may result in delayed diagnosis of high-grade cancer in some patients. 4Kscore is a useful additional test in the management of prostate cancer.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the relationship between pre‐operative PSA value, 68Ga‐prostate‐specific‐membrane‐antigen (PSMA) PET performance and oncologic outcomes after salvage lymph node dissection (sLND) for biochemical recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). Patients and methods The study included 164 patients diagnosed with ≤2 pelvic lymph‐node recurrence(s) of PCa documented on 68Ga‐PSMA PET scan and treated with pelvic ± retroperitoneal sLND at 11 high‐volume centres between 2012 and 2019. Pathologic findings were correlated to PSA values at time of sLND, categorized in early (1.5 ng/ml). Clinical recurrence (CR)‐free survival after sLND was calculated using multivariable analyses and plotted over pre‐operative PSA value. Results Median [interquartile range (IQR)] PSA at sLND was 1.1 (0.6, 2.0) ng/ml, and 131 (80%) patients had one positive spot at PET scan. All patients received pelvic sLND, whereas 91 (55%) men received also retroperitoneal dissection. Median (IQR) number of node removed was 15 (6, 28). The rate of positive pathology increased as a function of pre‐operative PSA value, with highest rates for patients with pre‐operative PSA > 1.5 ng/ml (pelvic‐only sLNDs: 84%; pelvic + retroperitoneal sLNDs: 90%). After sLND, PSA ≤ 0.3 ng/ml was detected in 67 (41%) men. On multivariable analyses, pre‐operative PSA was associated with PSA response (p

Background: The European Association of Urology guidelines recommend the use of imaging, biomarkers, and risk calculators in men at risk of prostate cancer. Risk predictive calculators that combine multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with prebiopsy variables aid as an individualized decision-making tool for patients at risk of prostate cancer, and advanced neural networking increases reliability of these tools. Objective: To develop a comprehensive risk predictive online web-based tool using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data, to predict the risk of any prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) applicable to biopsy-naïve men, men with a prior negative biopsy, men with prior positive low-grade cancer, and men with negative MRI. Design, setting, and participants: Institutional review board–approved prospective data of 1902 men undergoing biopsy from October 2013 to September 2021 at Mount Sinai were collected. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate clinical variables such as age, race, digital rectal examination, family history, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy status, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score, and prostate volume, which emerged as predictors for any PCa and csPCa. Binary logistic regression was performed to study the probability. Validation was performed with advanced neural networking (ANN), multi-institutional European cohort (Prostate MRI Outcome Database [PROMOD]), and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (ERSPC RC) 3/4. Results and limitations: Overall, 2363 biopsies had complete clinical information, with 57.98% any cancer and 31.40% csPCa. The prediction model was significantly associated with both any PCa and csPCa having an area under the curve (AUC) of 81.9% including clinical data. The AUC for external validation was calculated in PROMOD, ERSPC RC, and ANN for any PCa (0.82 vs 0.70 vs 0.90) and csPCa (0.82 vs 0.78 vs 0.92), respectively. This study is limited by its retrospective design and overestimation of csPCa in the PROMOD cohort. Conclusions: The Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator combines PSA, imaging and clinical data to predict the risk of any PCa and csPCa for all patient settings. With accurate validation results in a large European cohort, ERSPC RC, and ANN, it exhibits its efficiency and applicability in a more generalized population. This calculator is available online in the form of a free web-based tool that can aid clinicians in better patients counseling and treatment decision-making. Patient summary: We developed the Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator (MSP-RC) to assess the likelihood of any prostate cancer and clinically significant disease based on a combination of clinical and imaging characteristics. MSP-RC is applicable to all patient settings and accessible online.

BackgroundWe tested whether a model identifying prostate cancer (PCa) patients at risk of pT3-4/pN1 can be developed for use during COVID19 pandemic, in order to guarantee appropriate treatment to patients harboring advanced disease patients without compromising sustainability of care delivery.MethodsWithin the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database 2010-2016, we identified 27,529 patients with localized PCa and treated with radical prostatectomy. A multivariable logistic regression model predicting presence of pT3-4/pN1 disease was fitted within a development cohort (n=13,977, 50.8%). Subsequently, external validation (n=13,552, 49.2%) and head-to-head comparison with NCCN risk group stratification was performed.ResultsIn model development, age, PSA, biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) and percentage of positive biopsy cores were independent predictors of pT3-4/pN1 stage. In external validation, prediction of pT3-4/pN1 with novel nomogram was 74% accurate versus 68% for NCCN risk group stratification. Nomogram achieved better calibration and showed net-benefit over NCCN risk group stratification in decision curve analyses. The use of nomogram cut-off of 49% resulted in pT3-4/pN1 rate of 65%, instead of the average 35%.ConclusionThe newly developed, externally validated nomogram predicts presence of pT3-4/pN1 better than NCCN risk group stratification and allows to focus radical prostatectomy treatment on individuals at highest risk of pT3-4/pN1.

Abstract Background Docetaxel (D) or secondary hormonal therapy (SHT) each combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) represent possible treatment options in males with metastasized hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Real‐world data comparing different protocols are lacking yet. Thus, our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate (AA)+ADT versus D+ADT in mHSPC. Methods In a retrospective multicenter analysis including males with mHSPC treated with either of the aforementioned protocols, overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival 1 (PFS1), and progression‐free survival 2 (PFS2) were assessed for both cohorts. Median time to event was tested by Kaplan–Meier method and log‐rank test. The Cox‐proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate regression analyses. Results Overall, 196 patients were included. The AA+ADT cohort had a longer PFS1 in the log‐rank testing (23 vs. 13 mos., p

Objectives As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa).Design We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies.Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020.Eligibility criteria Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded.Data extraction and synthesis After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.Results The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability.Conclusion Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies.Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical implications.

Radioligand therapy with Lutetium-177 (177Lu)-Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has shown to prolong survival in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). One of the major challenges for clinicians in the future is to select those patients who would benefit most from this therapy to position it in the treatment landscape of mCRPC. This, in turn, will lead to the delivery of personalized therapies. In this narrative review article we summarize recent studies investigating both predictive and prognostic clinical, imaging-based, and molecular biomarkers to predict treatment response to 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy with the aim of identifying men who should be considered for this approach. Of note, the evidence on the role of biomarkers currently relies on small retrospective trials and their validation in larger prospective cohorts is necessary before these results can be translated in the clinical practice.

The role and timing of radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial. While recent trials support the oncological safety of early salvage RT (SRT) compared to adjuvant RT (ART) in selected patients, previous randomized studies demonstrated that ART might improve recurrence-free survival in patients at high risk for local recurrence based on adverse pathology. Although ART might improve survival, this approach is characterized by a risk of overtreatment in up to 40% of cases. SRT is defined as the administration of RT to the prostatic bed and to the surrounding tissues in the patient with PSA recurrence after surgery but no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The delivery of salvage therapies exclusively in men who experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) has the potential advantage of reducing the risk of side effects without theoretically compromising outcomes. However, how to select patients at risk of progression who are more likely to benefit from a more aggressive treatment after RP, the exact timing of RT after RP, and the use of hormone therapy and its duration at the time of RT are still open issues. Moreover, what the role of novel imaging techniques and genomic classifiers are in identifying the most optimal post-operative management of PCa patients treated with RP is yet to be clarified. This narrative review summarizes most relevant published data to guide a multidisciplinary team in selecting appropriate candidates for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy.

Focal therapy is a modern alternative to selectively treat a specific part of the prostate harboring clinically significant disease while preserving the rest of the gland. The aim of this therapeutic approach is to retain the oncological benefit of active treatment and to minimize the side-effects of common radical treatments. The oncological effectiveness of focal therapy is yet to be proven in long-term robust trials. In contrast, the toxicity profile is well-established in randomized controlled trials and multiple robust prospective cohort studies. This narrative review summarizes the relevant evidence on complications and their management after focal therapy. When compared to whole gland treatments, focal therapy provides a substantial benefit in terms of adverse events reduction and preservation of genito-urinary function. The most common complications occur in the peri-operative period. Urinary tract infection and acute urinary retention can occur in up to 17% of patients, while dysuria and haematuria are more common. Urinary incontinence following focal therapy is very rare (0–5%), and the vast majority of patients recover in few weeks. Erectile dysfunction can occur after focal therapy in 0–46%: the baseline function and the ablation template are the most important factors predicting post-operative erectile dysfunction. Focal therapy in the salvage setting after external beam radiotherapy has a significantly higher rate of complications. Up to one man in 10 will present a severe complication.

Objective: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a frequent treatment for men suffering from localized prostate cancer (PCa). Whilst offering a high chance for cure, it does not come without a significant impact on health-related quality of life. Herein we review the common adverse effects RP may have over the course of time.Methods: A collaborative narrative review was performed with the identification of the principal studies on the topic. The search was executed by a relevant term search on PubMed from 2010 to February 2021.Results: Rates of major complications in patients undergoing RP are generally low. The main adverse effects are erectile dysfunction varying from 11 to 87% and urinary incontinence varying from 0 to 87% with a peak in functional decline shortly after surgery, and dependent on definitions. Different less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. The highest rate of recovery is seen within the first year after RP, but even long-term improvements are possible. Nevertheless, for some men these adverse effects are long lasting and different, less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. Despite many technical advances over the last two decades no surgical approach can be clearly favored when looking at long-term outcome, as surgical volume and experience as well as individual patient characteristics are still the most influential variables.Conclusions: The frequency of erectile function and urinary continence side effects after RP, and the trajectory of recovery, need to be taken into account when counseling patients about their treatment options for prostate cancer.

BackgroundUse of predictive models for the prediction of biochemical recurrence (BCR) is gaining attention for prostate cancer (PCa). Specifically, BCR occurs in approximately 20–40% of patients five years after radical prostatectomy (RP) and the ability to predict BCR may help clinicians to make better treatment decisions. We aim to investigate the accuracy of CAPRA score compared to others models in predicting the 3-year BCR of PCa patients.Material and MethodsA total of 5043 men who underwent RP were analyzed retrospectively. The accuracy of CAPRA score, Cox regression analysis, logistic regression, K-nearest neighbor (KNN), random forest (RF) and a densely connected feed-forward neural network (DNN) classifier were compared in terms of 3-year BCR predictive value. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was mainly used to assess the performance of the predictive models in predicting the 3 years BCR of PCa patients. Pre-operative data such as PSA level, Gleason grade, and T stage were included in the multivariate analysis. To measure potential improvements to the model performance due to additional data, each model was trained once more with an additional set of post-operative surgical data from definitive pathology.ResultsUsing the CAPRA score variables, DNN predictive model showed the highest AUC value of 0.7 comparing to the CAPRA score, logistic regression, KNN, RF, and cox regression with 0.63, 0.63, 0.55, 0.64, and 0.64, respectively. After including the post-operative variables to the model, the AUC values based on KNN, RF, and cox regression and DNN were improved to 0.77, 0.74, 0.75, and 0.84, respectively.ConclusionsOur results showed that the DNN has the potential to predict the 3-year BCR and outperformed the CAPRA score and other predictive models.

Introduction As part of the PIONEER (Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe) Consortium, we will explore which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are currently being researched to previously defined clinical and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa).Methods and analysis This research project will follow the following four steps: (1) a broad systematic literature review of DPFs for all stages of PCa, covering evidence from 2014 onwards; (2) discussion of systematic review findings by a multidisciplinary expert panel; (3) risk of bias assessment and applicability with Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPS) and (4) additional quantitative assessments if required.Ethics and dissemination We aim to develop an online tool to present the DPFs identified in this research and make them available across all stakeholders. There are no ethical implications.

We describe the case of a 54-year-old man with nodal recurrence prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, salvage external-beam radiotherapy and salvage lymph node dissection. The patient was evaluated with a lymphotropic ultrasmall superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide (USPIO)-MRI and a 68Ga radiolabelled prostate specific membrane antigen (Ga68-PSMA) PET-CT scan which enhanced persistent localized nodal disease. The patient was then considered for a second robot-assisted extended S-LND. Differently from preoperative imaging, pathology report revealed a wide nodal involvement mirroring a metastatic disease. The current manuscript is an explanatory case on the limitations of lymph node imaging in prostate cancer recurrence.