Search

Contains fulltext : 252022.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cause of cancer death in males. Targeting MRI-visible lesions has led to an overall increase in the detection of clinically significant PCa compared to the prior practice of random ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Additionally, advances in MRI-guided minimally invasive focal treatments are providing new options for patients with PCa. This review summarizes the currently utilized real-time MRI-guided interventions for PCa diagnosis and treatment.

307 Background: Although definitive treatment is associated with improved survival for aggressive prostate cancer, a significant number of patients do not receive treatment. To identify gaps in practice, we sought to evaluate sociodemographic factors associated with non-treatment by clinical risk strata in the contemporary era. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients with prostate cancer using the National Cancer Database. A total of 616,479 patients diagnosed with localized prostate (cT1-4N0M0) cancer from 2010 to 2017 were included in the analysis. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with non-treatment, stratifying analyses by D’Amico clinical risk criteria. Results: The mean patient age at diagnosis was 65 years. 29.0% were diagnosed with low, 43.7% with intermediate, and 28.4% with high-risk prostate cancer. There were 71,848 (11.7%) who did not undergo initial treatment, including 46,269 (64.4%) with low, 18,376 (25.6%) with intermediate, and 7,203 (10.0%) with high-risk disease. Overall, non-treatment increased for low-risk (11.6% versus 47.0%), intermediate (4.4% versus 9.7%) and high risk (3.4% versus 4.7%). Compared with White patients, Black patients had lower odds of definitive treatment. This effect was more pronounced for patients with high (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.59-0.67) than intermediate (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.75-0.82) risk disease. Asian patients had lower odds of treatment compared with White patients across all disease risk strata (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77-0.87). There were lower odds of treatment among American Native/Alaskan Native versus White patients with high-risk prostate cancer (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.85). Uninsured (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.39-0.44, p

32 Background: A subset of patients are diagnosed with lethal prostate cancer early in life, before PSA screening is typically initiated. To identify opportunities for improved detection we evaluated patient clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with advanced versus localized prostate cancer diagnosis across the age spectrum. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database, identifying patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004-2016. We compared characteristics of patients diagnosed at advanced (cN1 or M1) versus localized (cT1-4N0M0) stage. Using multivariable logistic regression, we evaluated the associations among patient clinical and sociodemographic factors and advanced diagnosis, stratifying patients by age as 75 years. Results: We identified668,486 patients who met inclusion criteria (mean age at diagnosis=64.6 years), including 33,455 (5.0%) with advanced disease at diagnosis. Uninsured (odds ratio, OR=3.78, 95% confidence interval, CI 3.56-4.02) and Medicaid-insured (OR 2.84, 95% CI 2.70-3.00) versus commercially insured patients were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease, however this effect was more pronounced for younger patients. Among patients

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for prostate cancer screening in healthy men who have elected to participate in an early detection program. The NCCN Guidelines focus on minimizing unnecessary procedures and limiting the detection of indolent disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Prostate Cancer Early Detection Panel's most significant discussions for the 2016 guideline update, which included issues surrounding screening in high-risk populations (ie, African Americans, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers), approaches to refine patient selection for initial and repeat biopsies, and approaches to improve biopsy specificity.

PurposeGleason 6 (3+3) is the most commonly diagnosed prostate cancer among men with prostate specific antigen screening, the most histologically well differentiated and is associated with the most favorable prognosis. Despite its prevalence, considerable debate exists regarding the genetic features, clinical significance, natural history, metastatic potential and optimal management.Materials and methodsMembers of the Young Urologic Oncologists in the Society of Urologic Oncology cooperated in a comprehensive search of the peer reviewed English medical literature on Gleason 6 prostate cancer, specifically focusing on the history of the Gleason scoring system, histological features, clinical characteristics, practice patterns and outcomes.ResultsThe Gleason scoring system was devised in the early 1960s, widely adopted by 1987 and revised in 2005 with a more restrictive definition of Gleason 6 disease. There is near consensus that Gleason 6 meets pathological definitions of cancer, but controversy about whether it meets commonly accepted molecular and genetic criteria of cancer. Multiple clinical series suggest that the metastatic potential of contemporary Gleason 6 disease is negligible but not zero. Population based studies in the U.S. suggest that more than 90% of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer undergo treatment and are exposed to the risk of morbidity for a cancer unlikely to cause symptoms or decrease life expectancy. Efforts have been proposed to minimize the number of men diagnosed with or treated for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. These include modifications to prostate specific antigen based screening strategies such as targeting high risk populations, decreasing the frequency of screening, recommending screening cessation, incorporating remaining life expectancy estimates, using shared decision making and novel biomarkers, and eliminating prostate specific antigen screening entirely. Large nonrandomized and randomized studies have shown that active surveillance is an effective management strategy for men with Gleason 6 disease. Active surveillance dramatically reduces the number of men undergoing treatment without apparent compromise of cancer related outcomes.ConclusionsThe definition and clinical relevance of Gleason 6 prostate cancer have changed substantially since its introduction nearly 50 years ago. A high proportion of screen detected cancers are Gleason 6 and the metastatic potential is negligible. Dramatically reducing the diagnosis and treatment of Gleason 6 disease is likely to have a favorable impact on the net benefit of prostate cancer screening.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) can occur spontaneously or iatrogenically, and rates of AKI continue to rise over the last two decades despite improvements in clinical care and development of preventive strategies. Serum creatinine (sCr) is the current gold standard for measuring changes in kidney function and identifying AKI. Detection of AKI by sCr, however, is delayed and small rises connote significantly increased morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis of AKI by sCr is therefore likely too late to prevent some of the early structural changes that characterize renal injury. Several urinary biomarkers including neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase (NAG), Interleukin-18 (IL-18), kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), liver fatty-acid-binding protein (L-FABP), and cystatin-C, have shown an ability to predict AKI days before an elevation in sCr, and a few even seem to predict AKI-related morbidity and mortality better than sCr alone. A review of the current literature regarding these biomarkers reveals that they individually have unique strengths and weaknesses that can provide different types of information about patients. Currently, NGAL is the urine biomarker with the most promise as an individual marker. However, combining multiple markers to form a 'biomarker panel' along with sCr is an improvement over current clinical risk prediction models alone, and may be able to provide more individualized detail about the type and location of renal injury.