Search

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether completing a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile – Prostate (P3P), prior to prostatectomy, affects self-reported bother from post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis included data from men with newly diagnosed clinically localized, very low to intermediate risk prostate cancer who elected for prostatectomy within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) between 2018–21. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between P3P use and bother from post prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26). RESULTS: Among the 3987 patients included, 7% used P3P (n=266). Men who used P3P reported significantly less bother from erectile dysfunction at 6 months vs non-users (aOR 0.42 [95% CI 0.27–0.66]). At 12 months, the effect of P3P on bother from erectile dysfunction was not statistically significant (aOR 0.62 [95% CI 0.37–1.03]). Men who used P3P did not have a statistically significant difference in bother from urinary incontinence (3-month: aOR 0.56 [95% CI 0.30–1.06]; 6-month; aOR 0.79 [95% CI 0.31–1.97]). CONCLUSION: Within the stated limitations of this study, we find that use of a decision aid for localized prostate cancer was associated with decreased odds of men being bothered from sexual dysfunction but not urinary incontinence at 6 months post prostatectomy.

Supplementary File 1 from Integrative Analysis of Genomic Aberrations Associated with Prostate Cancer Progression

Supplementary Table 2 from Integrative Analysis of Genomic Aberrations Associated with Prostate Cancer Progression

Supplementary Methods from Integrative Analysis of Genomic Aberrations Associated with Prostate Cancer Progression

Supplementary Table 1 from Integrative Analysis of Genomic Aberrations Associated with Prostate Cancer Progression

Supplementary Figure Legend 1, Table Legends 1-3 from Integrative Analysis of Genomic Aberrations Associated with Prostate Cancer Progression

Supplementary Table 3 from Integrative Analysis of Genomic Aberrations Associated with Prostate Cancer Progression

Recent studies suggest that NOTCH signaling can promote epithelial-mesenchymal transitions and augment signaling through AKT, an important growth and survival pathway in epithelial cells and prostate cancer in particular. Here we show that JAGGED1, a NOTCH receptor ligand, is significantly more highly expressed in metastatic prostate cancer as compared with localized prostate cancer or benign prostatic tissues, based on immunohistochemical analysis of JAGGED1 expression in human tumor samples from 154 men. Furthermore, high JAGGED1 expression in a subset of clinically localized tumors was significantly associated with recurrence, independent of other clinical parameters. These findings support a model in which dysregulation of JAGGED1 protein levels plays a role in prostate cancer progression and metastasis and suggest that JAGGED1 may be a useful marker in distinguishing indolent and aggressive prostate cancers.

Integrative analysis of genomic aberrations in the context of trancriptomic alterations will lead to a more comprehensive perspective on prostate cancer progression. Genome-wide copy number changes were monitored using array comparative genomic hybridization of laser-capture microdissected prostate cancer samples spanning stages of prostate cancer progression, including precursor lesions, clinically localized disease, and metastatic disease. A total of 62 specific cell populations from 38 patients were profiled. Minimal common regions (MCR) of alterations were defined for each sample type, and metastatic samples displayed the most number of alterations. Clinically localized prostate cancer samples with high Gleason grade resembled metastatic samples with respect to the size of altered regions and number of affected genes. A total of 9 out of 13 MCRs in the putative precursor lesion, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), showed an overlap with prostate cancer cases (amplifications in 3q29, 5q31.3-q32, 6q27, and 8q24.3 and deletions in 6q22.31, 16p12.2, 17q21.2, and 17q21.31), whereas postatrophic hyperplasia (PAH) did not exhibit this overlap. Interestingly, prostate cancers that do not overexpress ETS family members (i.e., gene fusion–negative prostate cancers) harbor differential aberrations in 1q23, 6q16, 6q21, 10q23, and 10q24. Integrative analysis with matched mRNA profiles identified genetic alterations in several proposed candidate genes implicated in prostate cancer progression. [Cancer Res 2007;67(17):8229–39]

Supplementary Figures 1-2, Tables 1-2 from Characterization of TMPRSS2:ETV5 and SLC45A3:ETV5 Gene Fusions in Prostate Cancer

Recurrent gene fusions involving oncogenic ETS transcription factors (including ERG, ETV1, and ETV4) have been identified in a large fraction of prostate cancers. The most common fusions contain the 5′ untranslated region of TMPRSS2 fused to ERG. Recently, we identified additional 5′ partners in ETV1 fusions, including TMPRSS2, SLC45A3, HERV-K_22q11.23, C15ORF21, and HNRPA2B1. Here, we identify ETV5 as the fourth ETS family member involved in recurrent gene rearrangements in prostate cancer. Characterization of two cases with ETV5 outlier expression by RNA ligase–mediated rapid amplification of cDNA ends identified one case with a TMPRSS2:ETV5 fusion and one case with a SLC45A3:ETV5 fusion. We confirmed the presence of these fusions by quantitative PCR and fluorescence in situ hybridization. In vitro recapitulation of ETV5 overexpression induced invasion in RWPE cells, a benign immortalized prostatic epithelial cell line. Expression profiling and an integrative molecular concepts analysis of RWPE-ETV5 cells also revealed the induction of an invasive transcriptional program, consistent with ERG and ETV1 overexpression in RWPE cells, emphasizing the functional redundancy of ETS rearrangements. Together, our results suggest that the family of 5′ partners previously identified in ETV1 gene fusions can fuse with other ETS family members, suggesting numerous rare gene fusion permutations in prostate cancer. [Cancer Res 2008;68(1):73–80]

Supplementary Figure 1 from JAGGED1 Expression Is Associated with Prostate Cancer Metastasis and Recurrence

PURPOSE: Decision aids have been found to improve patients’ knowledge of treatments and decrease decisional regrets. Despite these benefits, there is not widespread use of decision aids for newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). This analysis investigates factors that impact men’s choice to use a decision aid for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a PCa registry from the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). We included data from men with newly diagnosed, clinically localized PCa seen from 2018-21 at practices offering a PCa decision aid (Personal Patient Profile-Prostate; P3P). The primary outcome was men’s registration to use P3P. We fit a multilevel logistic regression model with patient-level factors and included urologist specific random intercepts. We estimated the intra-class correlation (ICC) and predicted the probability of P3P registration among urologists. RESULTS: A total of 2629 men were seen at practices that participated in P3P and 1174 (45%) registered to use P3P. Forty-one percent of the total variance of P3P registration was attributed to clustering of men under a specific urologist’s care. In contrast, only 1.5% of the variance of P3P registration was explained by patient factors. Our model did not include data on socioeconomic, literacy or psychosocial factors, which limits the interpretation of the results. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that urologists’ effect far outweighs patient factors in a man’s decision to enroll in P3P. Strategies that encourage providers to increase decision aid adoption in their practices are warranted.

To understand experiences of patients with genitourinary cancer who experienced delayed cancer care due to the COVID-19 pandemic.We conducted a mixed methods study with an explanatory sequential design. Qualitative findings are reported here. Patients with muscle invasive bladder, advanced prostate or kidney cancer were eligible. Participants were selected for interviews if they self-reported low (0-3/10) or high (6-10/10) levels of distress on a previous survey. Participants were interviewed about their experiences. Interviews were transcribed, coded and categorised using thematic data analysis methodology.Eighteen patients were interviewed. Seven had prostate cancer, six bladder cancer and five kidney cancer. Six themes were derived from the interviews: (1) arriving at cancer diagnosis was hard enough, (2) response to treatment delay, (3) labelling cancer surgery as elective, (4) fear of COVID-19 infection, (5) quality of patient-provider relationship and communication and (6) what could have been done differently.These findings offer insight into the concerns of patients with genitourinary cancers who experienced treatment delays due to COVID-19. This information can be applied to support patients with cancers more broadly, should treatment delays occur in the future.

Introduction:The arrival of coronavirus disrupted health care systems and forced delays in cancer treatment. We explored the experience of urologists who had to delay their patients’ cancer...

We used data-analytics approaches to develop, calibrate, and validate predictive models, to help urologists in a large statewide collaborative make prostate cancer staging decisions on the basis of individual patient risk factors. The models were validated using statistical methods based on bootstrapping and evaluation on out-of-sample data. These models were used to design guidelines that optimally weigh the benefits and harms of radiological imaging for the detection of metastatic prostate cancer. The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, a statewide medical collaborative, implemented these guidelines, which were predicted to reduce unnecessary imaging by more than 40% and limit the percentage of patients with missed metastatic disease to be less than 1%. The effects of the guidelines were measured after implementation to confirm their impact on reducing unnecessary imaging across the state of Michigan.

We examined how the results of genomic classifier (GC) or post-magnetic resonance imaging confirmatory biopsy (pMRI-CBx) influenced management strategy for men with an MRI considering active surveillance (AS).We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry for men with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Among men with an MRI after the diagnostic biopsy (n = 1162) a subset also had GC (n = 126) or pMRI-CBx (n = 309). Results of MRI, GC, and pMRI-CBx were deemed reassuring (RA) or non-reassuring (Non-RA). We assess the association of the combination of test results obtained with the selection of AS. Proportions were compared with the Fisher's exact test. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit for an association of test results with the selection of AS.The results of pMRI-CBx tended to influence management decisions greater than that of GC, especially in situation where testing results were discordant with the MRI result. Fewer men with a RA MRI and non-RA pMRI-CBx where managed with AS compared with RA MRI alone (31% vs. 86%, p 0.001). non-RA genomics did not seem to have the same influence on management as non-RA pMRI-CBx as a similar proportion of men with RA MRI and non-RA genomics were managed with AS compared with RA MRI alone (85% vs. 86%, p = 0.753). More men with non-RA MRI and RA pMRI-CBx were managed with AS compared with non-RA MRI alone (89% vs. 40%, p 0.001). Alternatively, a similar proportion of men with non-RA MRI and RA genomics were managed with AS compared with non-RA MRI alone (42% vs. 40%, p 0.999). In the multivariable models, pMRI-CBx results influenced the decision for AS versus treatment.In men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer and an MRI, the additional information provided by pMRI-CBx influenced the decision of AS versus treatment, while the addition of GC results were less influential.

Objective To determine rates of watchful waiting (WW) vs treatment in prostate cancer (PCa) and limited life expectancy (LE) and assess determinants of management. Materials and Methods Patients diagnosed with PCa between 2012 and 2018 with Results Total 2393 patients were included. Overall, WW was performed in 8.1% compared to 23.3%, 25%, 11.2%, and 3.6% who underwent AS, radiation (XRT), prostatectomy (RP), and brachytherapy (BT), respectively. In men with NCCN low-risk disease (n = 358), WW was performed in 15.1%, compared to AS (69.3%), XRT (4.2%), RP (6.7%), and BT (2.5%). There was wide variation in management among practices in low-risk men; WW (6%-35%), AS (44%-81%), and definitive treatment (0%-30%). Older age was associated with less likelihood of undergoing AS vs WW (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, P Conclusion Wide practice level variation exists in management for patients with low- and favorable-risk PCa and

To investigate the performance of pre-surgery CT and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) to identify lymph node (LN) metastases in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). Abdominopelvic CT and mpMRI are commonly used for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) staging. Retrospective analysis of the MUSIC registry identified patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) between 3/2012 and 7/2018. Patients were classified according to pre-surgery imaging modality. Primary outcomes were operating characteristics of CT and mpMRI for detection of pathologic LN involvement (pN1). A total of 10,250 patients underwent RP and 3924 patients (38.3%) underwent CT and/or mpMRI prior to surgery. Suspicion for LN involvement was identified on 2.3% CT and 1.9% mpMRI. Overall, 391 patients were pN1(3.8%), including 0.1% low-, 2.1% intermediate-, and 10.9% high-risk PCa patients. Of 235 pN1 patients that underwent CT prior, far more had negative (91.1%) than positive (8.9%) findings, yielding sensitivity: 8.9%, specificity: 98.3%, negative predictive value (NPV): 92.1%, and positive predictive value (PPV): 32.3% for CT with regard to LN metastases. Similarly, more patients with pN1 disease had negative mpMRI (81.0%) then suspicious or indeterminate MRI (19.0%), yielding sensitivity: 19.0%, specificity: 97.3%, NPV: 95.9%, and PPV: 26.7%. Abdominopelvic CT and mpMRI have clear limitations in identifying LN metastases. Additional clinicopathologic features should be considered when making management decisions, as 2.1% and 10.9% with intermediate-and high-risk cancer had metastatic LNs. The majority of pN1 patients had a negative CT or a negative/indeterminate mpMRI prior to RP. Pelvic LN dissection should be performed in RP patients with intermediate- or high-risk PCa, independent of preoperative imaging results.

Several guidelines recommend pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) at robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) only when lymph node involvement (LN+) is2%. Individual surgeon use of PLND is not well-known. We sought to examine variability in PLND performance and detection of LN+ across the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative.Data regarding all RARP (3/2012-9/2018) were prospectively collected, including patient and surgeon characteristics. Univariable and multivariable analyses of PLND rate and LN+ rate were performed.Among 9,751 men undergoing RARP, 79.8% had PLND performed (n = 7,781), of which 5.2% were LN+ (n = 404). In univariate and multivariable analyses, predictors of PLND included higher Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason grade (bGG), number of positive cores, and maximum core involvement at P0.05 for each. Higher PSA, cT stage, bGG, number of positive cores, and maximum core involvement predicted LN+ when PLND was performed (P0.05 for each). There was significant surgeon variation in the proportion of PLND performed at RARP, yet neither surgeon-annualized RARP volume nor % of PLND performed was associated with LN+ disease (P0.05). Grade was associated with PLND (60.0%, 77.6%, 91.0%, 97.3%, and 98.5%; P0.001) and LN+ (0.7%, 2.5%, 5.8%, 8.6%, and 19.9%; P0.001) for bGG 1,2,3,4,5, respectively. Maximum core involvement also strongly predicted LN+ with rates of 1.5%, 3.8%, and 9.4% for35%, 35% to 65%, and65%, respectively (P0.001).Nearly 80% of RARP in Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative were performed with PLND, including 60% of bGG1 patients (with LN+ in only 0.7%), but significant variability exists between surgeons. Our data indicate limited benefit for favorable-risk CaP patients and support efforts to decrease PLND use going forward.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic led to delays in urologic cancer treatment. We sought the patient perspective on these delays. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study with an explanatory-sequential design. Survey findings are presented here. Patients from a Midwestern Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network provided demographic and clinical data and responded to statements asking them to characterize their experience of treatment delay, patient-provider communication and coping strategies. We quantified patient distress with an ordinal scale (0-10), based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT). Results Forty-four consenting patients responded to the survey. Most were older than 61 years (77%) and male (66%). Their diagnoses included bladder (45%), prostate (30%) and kidney (20%) cancers. Median time since diagnosis was 6 months, 95% had plans for surgical treatment. Dominant reactions to treatment delay included fear that cancer would progress (50%) and relief at avoiding COVID-19 exposure (43%). Most patients reported feeling that their providers acknowledged their emotions (70%), yet 52% did not receive follow up phone calls and only 55% felt continually supported by their providers. Patients’ median distress level was 5/10 with 68% of patients reaching a clinically significant level of distress (≥4). Thematically grouped suggestions for providers included better communication (18%), more personalized support (14%), and better patient education (11%). Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, a high proportion of urologic cancer patients reached a clinically significant level of distress. While they felt concern from providers, they desired more engagement and personalized care.

BACKGROUND We evaluated the use of secondary treatments in men with grade group (GG) 1 PC following a period of active surveillance (AS) compared with men undergoing immediate radical prostatectomy (RP) to evaluate what is potentially lost in terms of cancer control, if a patient trials AS and transitions to treatment. METHODS We reviewed the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry for men with GG1 PC undergoing RP from April 2012 to July 2018. Men were classified into groups based on time from diagnosis to RP: immediate (surgery within 1 year of diagnosis) and delayed RP (surgery >1 year after initiation of AS). Time to secondary treatment was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using the log-rank test. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was fit to assess the association between timing of RP and use of secondary treatments. A chi-squared test was used to assess the association between delayed RP and adverse pathology. RESULTS We identified 1878 men that underwent an RP during the study period, of which 1489 (79%) underwent immediate RP and 389 (21%) underwent delayed RP. The incidence of adverse pathology was higher in men with delayed versus immediate RP (49% vs. 36%, p

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), genomic classifiers (GC), and post-MRI biopsy (pMRI-Bx) have become increasingly integrated into the shared-decision making process for ...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Decision aids (DA) have been found to improve patients’ knowledge of treatment and decrease decisional regrets. Despite their many benefits, there is not widespread use o...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Confirmatory testing is recommended during the consideration phase for active surveillance (AS) of favorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa) within the first 6 months of diagn...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The association between decision aids (DA) use and clinically-meaningful patient reported outcomes is not well established. We evaluated whether completing a DA, Personal...

Introduction:Since 2014 the AUA (American Urological Association) has convened several Quality Improvement Summits to provide education and promote dialogue around issues of quality improve...

Closed suction drain (CSD) placement is common in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Our goal is to quantify outcomes of RARP for patients undergoing RARP by surgeons who regularly or selectively use CSDs. Patients undergoing RARP (4/2014−7/2017) were prospectively entered into the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Outcomes included length of stay (LOS) >2 days, >16-day catheterization, 30-day readmission, and clinically significant urine leak or ileus. Retrospective analysis of each adverse event was performed comparing groups using chi-square tests. In all, 6746 RARPs were performed by 115 MUSIC surgeons. CSDs were used in 4451 RARP (66.0%), with wide variation in surgeon CSD use (median: 94.7%, range: 0–100%, IQR: 45–100%). The cohorts of patients treated by surgeons with regular vs. selective CSD usage were similar. CSD use pattern was not associated with rates of prolonged catheterization (4.6% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.17) or readmission (4.5% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.35) and multivariable analysis confirmed these findings (each p > 0.10). Regular CSD use was associated with LOS >2 days (8.4% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.001) and multivariable analyses indicated an odds ratio (OR) of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.12–1.79; p = 0.017) and increased likelihood of clinically significant ileus (OR: 1.64; CI: 1.14–2.35; p = 0.008). Although there are specific situations in which CSDs are beneficial, e.g. anastomotic leak or observed lymphatic drainage, regular CSD use during RARP was associated with a greater likelihood of LOS >2 days and clinically significant ileus. Our data suggest that CSD should be placed selectively rather than routinely after RARP.

The GG (Grade Group) system was introduced in 2013. Data from academic centers suggest that GG better distinguishes between prostate cancer risk groups than the Gleason score (GS) risk groups. We compared the performance of the 2 systems to predict pathological/recurrence outcomes using data from the MUSIC (Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative).Patients who underwent biopsy and radical prostatectomy in the MUSIC from March 2012 to June 2017 were classified according to GG and GS. Outcomes included the presence or absence of extraprostatic extension, seminal vesical invasion, positive lymph nodes, positive surgical margins and time to cancer recurrence (defined as postoperative prostate specific antigen 0.2 ng/ml or greater). Logistic and Cox regression models were used to compare the difference in outcomes.A total of 8,052 patients were identified. When controlling for patient characteristics, significantly higher risks of extraprostatic extension, seminal vesical invasion and positive lymph nodes were observed for biopsy GG 3 vs 2 and for GG 5 vs 4 (p0.001). Biopsy GGs 3, 4 and 5 also showed shorter time to biochemical recurrence than GGs 2, 3 and 4, respectively (p0.001). GGs 3, 4 and 5 at radical prostatectomy were each associated with a greater probability of recurrence compared to the next lower GG (p0.001). GG (vs GS) had better predictive power for extraprostatic extension, seminal vesical invasion, positive lymph nodes and biochemical recurrence.GG at biopsy and radical prostatectomy allows for better discrimination of recurrence-free survival between individual risk groups than GS risk groups with GGs 2, 3, 4 and 5 each incrementally associated with increased risk.

Objectives To examine the relationship between influential factors and treatment decisions among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa). Methods We identified men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry diagnosed with localized PCa between 2018-2020 who completed Personal Patient Profile-Prostate. We analyzed the proportion of active surveillance (AS) between men who stated future bladder, bowel, and sexual problems (termed influential factors) had “a lot of influence” on their treatment decisions versus other responses. We also assessed the relationship between influential factors, confirmatory testing results and choice of AS. Results A total of 509 men completed Personal Patient Profile-Prostate. Treatment decisions aligned with influential factors for 88% of men with favorable risk and 49% with unfavorable risk PCa. A higher proportion of men who identified bladder, bowel and sexual concerns as having “a lot of influence” on their treatment decision chose AS, compared with men with other influential factors, although not statistically significant (44% vs 35%, P = .11). Similar results were also found when men were stratified based on PCa risk groups (favorable risk: 78% vs 67%; unfavorable risk: 17% vs 9%, respectively). Despite a small sample size, a higher proportion of men with non-reassuring confirmatory testing selected AS if influential factors had “a lot of influence” compared to “no influence” on their treatment decisions. Conclusion Men's concerns for future bladder, bowel, and sexual function problems, as elicited by a decision aid, may help explain treatment selection that differs from traditional clinical recommendation.

Introduction: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy carries known risk of sepsis due primarily to fecal contamination of the biopsy needle. The in-office transperineal appro...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:Rapid and widespread dissemination of prostate MR and fusion biopsy (FBx) has resulted in variation in quality of care due to radiologist, urologist, and technical factor...

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) is a quality improvement program focused on improving the care of men with prostate cancer (CaP). Data c...

To assess the impact of confirmatory tests on active surveillance (AS) biopsy disease reclassification and progression to treatment in men with favorable risk prostate cancer (FRPC).We searched the MUSIC registry for men with FRPC managed with AS without or with a confirmatory test. Confirmatory tests included (1) repeat prostate biopsy, (2) genomic tests, (3) prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or (4) MRI followed by a post-MRI biopsy. Confirmatory test results were deemed reassuring (RA) or nonreassuring (nonRA) according to predefined criteria. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare surveillance biopsy disease reclassification-free survival and treatment-free survival.Of the 2,514 men with FRPC who were managed on AS, 1211 (48%) men obtained a confirmatory test. We noted differences in the 12-month unadjusted surveillance biopsy disease reclassification-free probability (68%, 83%, and 90%, P.0001) and 24-month unadjusted treatment-free probability (55%, 81%, and 79%, P.0001), for men with nonRA confirmatory tests, no confirmatory test, and RA confirmatory tests, respectively. Excluding patients with genomic confirmatory tests, men with RA confirmatory tests were associated with a lower hazard (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.84, P = .005) and men with nonRA confirmatory tests had an increased hazard (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.22-3.19, P = .006) of surveillance disease reclassification compared with men without confirmatory tests in the multivariable model.These data suggest men with RA confirmatory tests have less surveillance biopsy reclassification and remain on AS longer than men with nonRA test results. Confirmatory tests may help risk stratify men considering active surveillance.

To investigate the performance of pre-surgery CT and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) to identify lymph node (LN) metastases in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). Abdominopelvic CT and mpMRI are commonly used for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) staging.Retrospective analysis of the MUSIC registry identified patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) between 3/2012 and 7/2018. Patients were classified according to pre-surgery imaging modality. Primary outcomes were operating characteristics of CT and mpMRI for detection of pathologic LN involvement (pN1).A total of 10,250 patients underwent RP and 3924 patients (38.3%) underwent CT and/or mpMRI prior to surgery. Suspicion for LN involvement was identified on 2.3% CT and 1.9% mpMRI. Overall, 391 patients were pN1(3.8%), including 0.1% low-, 2.1% intermediate-, and 10.9% high-risk PCa patients. Of 235 pN1 patients that underwent CT prior, far more had negative (91.1%) than positive (8.9%) findings, yielding sensitivity: 8.9%, specificity: 98.3%, negative predictive value (NPV): 92.1%, and positive predictive value (PPV): 32.3% for CT with regard to LN metastases. Similarly, more patients with pN1 disease had negative mpMRI (81.0%) then suspicious or indeterminate MRI (19.0%), yielding sensitivity: 19.0%, specificity: 97.3%, NPV: 95.9%, and PPV: 26.7%.Abdominopelvic CT and mpMRI have clear limitations in identifying LN metastases. Additional clinicopathologic features should be considered when making management decisions, as 2.1% and 10.9% with intermediate-and high-risk cancer had metastatic LNs. The majority of pN1 patients had a negative CT or a negative/indeterminate mpMRI prior to RP. Pelvic LN dissection should be performed in RP patients with intermediate- or high-risk PCa, independent of preoperative imaging results.

IMPORTANCE: Of patient-reported outcomes for individuals undergoing radical prostatectomy, sexual function outcomes are among the most reported and the most detrimental to quality of life. Understanding variations at the patient and surgeon level may inform collaborative quality improvement. OBJECTIVE: To describe patient- and surgeon-level sexual function outcomes for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) and to examine the correlation between surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a prospective cohort study using the MUSIC registry and patient-reported sexual function outcome data. Patient- and surgeon-level variation in sexual function outcomes were examined among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy from May 2014 to August 2019. Sexual function outcome data were collected using validated questionnaires, which were completed before surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months’ follow-up following surgery. All participants were male. Race and ethnicity data were self-reported and were included to examine potential variation in outcomes by race and/or ethnicity. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: There were 4 outcomes in this study, including the 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) sexual function scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months’ follow-up; patient-level sexual function recovery at 12- and 24-month follow-up; surgeon-level variation in sexual function outcomes at 12- and 24-month follow-up; and correlation between surgeon case volume and sexual function outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1426 male patients met inclusion criteria for this study. The median (IQR) age was 64 (58-68) years. A total of 115 participants (8%) were Black, 1197 (84%) were White, 25 (2%) were of another race or ethnicity (consolidated owing to low numbers), and 89 (6%) were of unknown race or ethnicity. Among patients undergoing bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, mean (SD) EPIC-26 sexual function scores at 12- and 24-month follow-up (12 months, 39 [28]; 24 months, 63 [29]) did not return to baseline levels. There was wide variation in EPIC-26 sexual function scores at both 12-month follow-up (range, 23-69; P

Objective To examine the relationship between the use and results of early confirmatory testing and persistence on active surveillance (AS). Methods We identified all men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative registry diagnosed with favorable-risk prostate cancer from June 2016 to June 2017. We next examined trends in the use of early confirmatory test(s), defined as repeat biopsy, prostate magnetic resonance imaging, or molecular classifiers obtained within 6 months of the initial cancer diagnosis, in patients with favorable-risk prostate cancer. We then compared the proportion of men remaining on AS 6 months after diagnosis according to reassuring vs nonreassuring results, also stratifying by age and Gleason score. Results Among 2529 patients, 32.7% underwent early confirmatory testing within 6 months of diagnosis. Its use increased from 25.4% in the second quarter of 2016 to 34.9% in the second quarter of 2017 (P = .025). Molecular classifiers were most frequently used (55%), followed by magnetic resonance imaging (34%) and repeat biopsy (11%). Sixty-four percent (n = 523) had a reassuring result. Rates of AS were higher for patients with early reassuring results; 82% remained on AS (n = 427) compared to 52% (n = 157) of those with nonreassuring results and 51% (n = 873) with no early confirmatory testing (P Conclusion Rates of AS are higher among men with early reassuring results, supporting the clinical utility of these tests. Nonetheless, high rates of AS among patients with nonreassuring results underscore the complexity of shared decision-making in this setting.

To evaluate the integration of 3T nonendorectal coil multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) at 2 high-volume practices that routinely use mpMRI in the setting of active surveillance.This was an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, and dual-institution retrospective cohort study. Subjects undergoing 3T mpMRI without endorectal coil at either study institution over a 13-month period (August 1, 2015-August 31, 2016) were selected based on predefined criteria: clinical T1/T2 Gleason 6 prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen15 ng/mL, ≥40 years old, mpMRI within 2 years of prostate biopsy, and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 score assigned. Subjects surveilled for Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer were excluded. The primary outcome was detection of Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer on magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy, standard biopsy, or prostatectomy within 6 months following mpMRI. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated.A total of 286 subjects (N = 193 from institution 1, N = 93 from institution 2) met the criteria. Most (87% [90 of 104]) with maximum PI-RADS v2 scores of 1-2 did not receive immediate biopsy or treatment and remained on active surveillance. Incidence and PPVs for PI-RADS v2 scores of ≥3 were the following: PI-RADS 3 (n = 57 [20%], PPV 21% [6 of 29]), PI-RADS 4 (n = 96 [34%], PPV 51% [39 of 77]), and PI-RADS 5 (n = 29 [13%], PPV 71% [20 of 28]). No Gleason ≥4 + 3 prostate cancer was identified for PI-RADS v2 scores of 1-3 (0 of 43 with histology). Following mpMRI and subsequent biopsy, 21% (61 of 286) of subjects were removed from active surveillance and underwent definitive therapy.The 3T nonendorectal coil mpMRI has been integrated into the care of patients on active surveillance and effectively stratifies risk of Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer in this population.

OBJECTIVE To determine how best to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and targeted MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations and whether it can be cost-effective. METHODS A Markov model of PCa onset and progression was developed to estimate the health and economic consequences of PCa screening with MRI. Patients underwent PSA screening from ages 55 to 69 years. Patients with elevated PSA concentrations (>4 ng/mL) underwent MRI, followed by targeted fusion or combined (standard + targeted fusion) biopsy on positive MRI, and standard or no biopsy on negative MRI. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score on MRI was used to determine biopsy decisions. Deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated for each strategy. RESULTS With a negative MRI, standard biopsy was more expensive and had lower QALYs than performing no biopsy. The optimum screening strategy (ICER $23 483/QALY) recommended combined biopsy for patients with PI-RADS score ≥3 and no biopsy for patients with PI-RADS score

Objectives To determine whether a needle disinfectant step during transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy is associated with lower rates of infection-related hospitalisation. Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of all TRUS-guided prostate biopsies taken across the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) from January 2012 to March 2015. Natural variation in technique allowed us to evaluate for differences in infection-related hospitalisations based on whether or not a needle disinfectant technique was used. The disinfectant technique was an intra-procedural step to cleanse the biopsy needle with antibacterial solution after each core was sampled (i.e., 10% formalin or 70% isopropyl alcohol). After grouping biopsies according to whether or not the procedure included a needle disinfectant step, we compared the rate of infection-related hospitalisations within 30 days of biopsy. Generalised estimating equation models were fit to adjust for potential confounders. Results During the evaluated period, 17 954 TRUS-guided prostate biopsies were taken with 5 321 (29.6%) including a disinfectant step. The observed rate of infection-related hospitalisation was lower when a disinfectant technique was used during biopsy (0.60% vs 0.90%; P = 0.04). After accounting for differences between groups the adjusted hospitalisation rate in the disinfectant group was 0.85% vs 1.12% in the no disinfectant group (adjusted odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.50-1.15; P = 0.19). Conclusions In this observational analysis, hospitalisations for infectious complications were less common when the TRUS-guided prostate biopsy included a needle disinfection step. However, after adjusting for potential confounders the effect of needle disinfection was not statistically significant. Prospective evaluation is warranted to determine if this step provides a scalable and effective method to minimise infectious complications.