Search

Contains fulltext : 287583.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is one of the most expensive cancers owing to frequent follow-up cystoscopies for detection of recurrence. OBJECTIVE: To assess if the noninvasive ADXBLADDER urine test could permit a less intensive surveillance schedule for patients with low-grade (LG) pTa tumor without carcinoma in situ (CIS) at the previous diagnosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a prospective, double-blind, multicenter study, 629 patients underwent follow-up cystoscopy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor/biopsy of suspect lesions, and ADXBLADDER testing. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Diagnostic test accuracy and decision curve analysis were used to evaluate the impact of ADXBLADDER on decision-making on whether to perform follow-up cystoscopy. The primary endpoint was the negative predictive value (NPV) of ADXBLADDER for detection of high-grade and/or CIS (HG/CIS) recurrence and its impact on reducing unnecessary cystoscopies. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: ADXBLADDER had sensitivity of 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 34.9-90.1%) and an NPV of 99.15% (95% CI 97.8-99.8%) for detection of HG/CIS recurrence. The probability of HG/CIS recurrence was 5.0% for ADXBLADDER-positive patients and 0.85% for ADXBLADDER-negative patients. For HG/CIS recurrence threshold probabilities between 0.85% and 5.0%, ADXBLADDER yields a net benefit with omission of cystoscopy for ADXBLADDER-negative patients. The corresponding net reduction in unnecessary cystoscopies ranges from 11 to 62 per 100 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LG pTa tumor at the previous diagnosis, for which the risk of HG/CIS recurrence is low and the ADXBLADDER NPV for ruling out HG/CIS recurrence is 99.15%, are ideally suited for a less intensive, personalized follow-up surveillance strategy using ADXBLADDER, with omission of cystoscopy for ADXBLADDER-negative patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: ADXBLADDER is a urine test that can predict the probability of recurrence of bladder cancer. Patients diagnosed with low-grade cancer confined to the bladder mucosa are ideally suited for less intensive follow-up using this test, which could reduce unnecessary cystoscopy procedures for those with a negative result, potentially improve quality of life, and reduce overall health care costs.

Clinicians and patients must weigh the risk of treatment of prostate cancer during a global pandemic with the risk of cancer treatment delays. With the possibility of another peak, public confidence in cancer treatments requiring general anaesthetic will be critical. We report on the safety of performing focal therapy in the UK during the initial Covid-19 peak. Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients treated in 8 centres (23/3/20-23/7/20) were contacted at least 2 weeks after receiving focal ablative therapy. Treatment modalities included high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU, n=90), cryotherapy (n=32) or irreversible electroporation (IRE, n=6). Results: 128/129 patients treated during the study period were successfully contacted. 107/ 128 (83.5%) underwent primary focal treatment, all had D'Amico intermediate or high-risk disease. National guidelines varied throughout the period. Treating sites requested formal shielding from May 2020 and done in 48/128 (37.5%). 20/128 (15.6%) underwent pre-operative swab tests and 5/128 (3.9%) pre-operative chest imaging. Two (1.6%) had intra-operative complications secondary to catheterisation, but none required overnight admission. No COVID-19 related post-treatment admissions were reported;2 (1.6%) had Covid-19 related symptoms but were not tested as symptoms spontaneously resolved. 3 were admitted for non- COVID-19 issues and one was directly due to treatment related clot retention resulting in the only reported Clavien-Dindo score >2 complication [Table 1]. Conclusions: Focal therapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer was a safe treatment option during a COVID-19 pandemic when appropriate precautions are taken and should be discussed with eligible patients.

For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies. Following the eligibility criteria PSA

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

Background False positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) phenotypes prompt unnecessary biopsies. The Prostate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS) provides a unique opportunity to explore such phenotypes in biopsy-naïve men with raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and suspected cancer. Objective To compare mpMRI lesions in men with/without significant cancer on transperineal mapping biopsy (TPM). Design, setting, and participants PROMIS participants (n = 235) underwent mpMRI followed by a combined biopsy procedure at University College London Hospital, including 5-mm TPM as the reference standard. Patients were divided into four mutually exclusive groups according to TPM findings: (1) no cancer, (2) insignificant cancer, (3) definition 2 significant cancer (Gleason ≥3 + 4 of any length and/or maximum cancer core length ≥4 mm of any grade), and (4) definition 1 significant cancer (Gleason ≥4 + 3 of any length and/or maximum cancer core length ≥6 mm of any grade). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Index and/or additional lesions present in 178 participants were compared between TPM groups in terms of number, conspicuity, volume, location, and radiological characteristics. Results and limitations Most lesions were located in the peripheral zone. More men with significant cancer had two or more lesions than those without significant disease (67% vs 37%; p, Take Home Message Significant cancer-associated magnetic resonance imaging lesions in biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer are larger, more conspicuous, and more diffusion restricted than false positives. Prostate-specific antigen density and apparent diffusion coefficient are predictors of significant disease, and could help guide decisions to biopsy men with indeterminate phenotypes.

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-naive 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.

Contains fulltext : 245022.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVE: To compare directly the performance of the ADXBLADDER test with that of cytology in the detection of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) recurrences. BACKGROUND: ADXBLADDER is a urine test based on the detection of MCM5, a DNA licensing factor expressed in all cells capable of dividing. Expression is usually restricted to the basal stem cell compartment; however, in malignancy, MCM5-expressing cells can be found throughout the epithelium. Detection of MCM5 in urine sediment can be indicative of the presence of a bladder tumour. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentre prospective, blinded study was carried out from August 2017 and July 2019 at 21 European Union centres, 14 of which collected matching cytology data. Urine was collected from patients prior to cystoscopy. Urine cytology and ADXBLADDER were performed and compared to the diagnosis obtained by cystoscopy. The performance of cytology and ADXBLADDER were then compared. RESULTS: The overall performance of ADXBLADDER demonstrated a sensitivity of 51.9%, a specificity of 66.4%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 92%. The sensitivity of ADXBLADDER for low- and high-grade recurrences was 44.1% and 58.8%, respectively. By contrast, cytology sensitivity was 16.7%, specificity was 98% and NPV was 90.7%. Cytology sensitivity for both low- and high-grade disease was 17.6%. CONCLUSIONS: ADXBLADDER detection of both low- and high-grade NMIBC recurrence is superior to that of cytology, with ADXBLADDER able to exclude the presence of high-grade recurrence in 97.8% of cases compared to 97.1% with cytology. These results show that ADXBLADDER has promise as a more reliable alternative to urine cytology in the follow-up of NMIBC.

Objectives To assess change in functional outcomes after a second focal high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment compared with outcomes after one focal HIFU treatment. Patients and methods In this multicentre study (2005-2016), 821 men underwent focal HIFU for localized non-metastatic prostate cancer. The patient-reported outcome measures of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage and erectile function (EF) score were prospectively collected for up to 3 years. To be included in the study, completion of at least one follow-up questionnaire was required. The primary outcome was comparison of change in functional outcomes between baseline and follow-up after one focal HIFU procedure vs after a second focal HIFU procedure, using IPSS, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaires. Results Of 821 men, 654 underwent one focal HIFU procedure and 167 underwent a second focal HIFU procedure. A total of 355 (54.3%) men undergoing one focal HIFU procedure and 65 (38.9%) with a second focal HIFU procedure returned follow-up questionnaires, respectively. The mean age and prostate-specific antigen level were 66.4 and 65.6 years, and 7.9 and 8.4 ng/mL, respectively. After one focal HIFU treatment, the mean change in IPSS was -0.03 (P = 0.02) and in IIEF (EF score) it was -0.4 (P = 0.02) at 1-2 years, with no subsequent decline. Absolute rates of erectile dysfunction increased from 9.9% to 20.8% (P = 0.08), leak-free continence decreased from 77.9% to 72.8% (P = 0.06) and pad-free continence from 98.6% to 94.8% (P = 0.07) at 1-2 years, respectively. IPSS prior to second focal HIFU treatment compared to baseline IPSS prior to first focal HIFU treatment was lower by -1.3 (P = 0.02), but mean IPSS change was +1.4 at 1-2 years (P = 0.03) and +1.2 at 2-3 years (P = 0.003) after the second focal HIFU treatment. The mean change in EF score after the second focal HIFU treatment was -0.2 at 1-2 years (P = 0.60) and -0.5 at 2-3 years (P = 0.10), with 17.8% and 6.2% of men with new erectile dysfunction. The rate of new pad use was 1.8% at 1-2 years and 2.6% at 2-3 years. Conclusion A second focal HIFU procedure causes minor detrimental effects on urinary function and EF. These data can be used to counsel patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer prior to considering HIFU therapy.

Bladder cancer is the sixth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the European Union. Here, we evaluate the performance of a novel, commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay utilising MCM5 antibodies (ADXBLADDER; Arquer Diagnostics Ltd, Sunderland, UK) for the detection of bladder cancer, in a blinded, prospective study of 856 patients, across seven centres, presenting with haematuria. The results were compared with the patients' clinical data and final diagnosis as defined by the results of the imaging and cystoscopy, with a prevalence of bladder cancer of 8.6%. ADXBLADDER detected bladder tumours in 54/74 cancers, giving overall sensitivity of 73.0% and an overall negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.4%. Sensitivity and NPV of ADXBLADDER were highest in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, both at 100%, and on analysis of non-pTa (pT1 and above) tumours, the sensitivity for detection was 97% with an NPV of 99.8%. A subset of 173 patients had matching cytology data; of these patients, 18 were positive for bladder cancer. ADXBLADDER detected 16/18 of these cancers, whilst cytology was positive in only four of 18, providing evidence that ADXBLADDER may be a more sensitive test for bladder cancer than standard urine cytology. PATIENT SUMMARY: We conducted a large clinical study of a novel, simple urine test (ADXBLADDER), which measures a protein (MCM5) in urine and can be used to detect bladder cancer in patients. We recruited 856 patients and demonstrated that the new urine test can detect bladder cancer with a high degree of accuracy, performing better than the most commonly used urine test-urine cytology. In conclusion, this novel ADXBLADDER urine test can be used to help detect bladder cancers and it can replace the current, standard urine test.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy occurs in one in five patients. The efficacy of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in recurrent cancer has not been established. Furthermore, high-quality data on new minimally invasive salvage focal ablative treatments are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of prostate MRI in detection of prostate cancer recurring after radiotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The FORECAST trial was both a paired-cohort diagnostic study evaluating prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsies in the detection of recurrent cancer and a cohort study evaluating focal ablation at six UK centres. A total of 181 patients were recruited, with 155 included in the MRI analysis and 93 in the focal ablation analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and a bone scan, followed by prostate mpMRI and MRI-targeted and transperineal template-mapping (TTPM) biopsies. MRI was reported blind to other tests. Those eligible underwent subsequent focal ablation. An amendment in December 2014 permitted focal ablation in patients with metastases. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were the sensitivity of MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for cancer detection, and urinary incontinence after focal ablation. A key secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Staging whole-body imaging revealed localised cancer in 128 patients (71%), with involvement of pelvic nodes only in 13 (7%) and metastases in 38 (21%). The sensitivity of MRI-targeted biopsy was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83–97%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 75% (95% CI 45–92%), 94% (95% CI 86–98%), and 65% (95% CI 38–86%), respectively. Four cancer (6%) were missed by TTPM biopsy and six (8%) were missed by MRI-targeted biopsy. The overall MRI sensitivity for detection of any cancer was 94% (95% CI 88–98%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 18% (95% CI 7–35%), 80% (95% CI 73–87%), and 46% (95% CI 19–75%), respectively. Among 93 patients undergoing focal ablation, urinary incontinence occurred in 15 (16%) and five (5%) had a grade ≥3 adverse event, with no rectal injuries. Median follow-up was 27 mo (interquartile range 18–36); overall PFS was 66% (interquartile range 54–75%) at 24 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies to optimise cancer detection. Focal ablation for areas of intraprostatic recurrence preserves continence in the majority, with good early cancer control. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate and MRI-targeted biopsies in outcomes after cancer-targeted high-intensity ultrasound or cryotherapy in patients with recurrent cancer after radiotherapy. Our findings show that these patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies and then ablative treatment focused on areas of recurrent cancer to preserve their quality of life.

Funder: Victorian Cancer Agency, Funder: NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Cancer Research UK, Funder: Cancer Council Tasmania, Funder: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Funder: Cancer Australia, Funder: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, Funder: Cancer Council South Australia, Funder: Swedish Cancer Society, Funder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Institut Català de la Salut, Funder: Cancer Council Victoria, Funder: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Funder: National Institutes of Health, BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants. METHODS: The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0). INTERPRETATION: After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer.

Background Focal cryotherapy can be used to treat patients with clinically significant nonmetastatic prostate cancer to reduce side effects. Objective Early-medium-term cancer control and functional outcomes. Design, setting, and participants A prospective registry-based case series of 122 consecutive patients undergoing focal cryotherapy between October 1, 2013, and November 30, 2016, in five UK centres. Median follow-up was 27.8mo [interquartile range (IQR) 19.5–36.7]. A total of 35 patients (28.7%) had National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high risk and 87 (71.3%) had intermediate risk disease. Risk and zonal stratification included multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) with targeted and systematic biopsies, or transperineal mapping biopsies. Intervention Focal cryoablation of MR-visible tumours. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Follow-up involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) monitoring, mpMRI, and for-cause biopsies. Primary outcome was failure-free survival (FFS), defined as transition to radical, whole-gland, or systemic therapy, or metastases/death. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and functional outcomes. Results and limitations A total of 80 (65.6%) had anterior ablation, 23 (19.7%) combined posterior and anterior ablation, and two (1.6%) posterior ablation alone (SeedNet or Visual-ICE, BTG plc). Median age was 68.7yr (IQR 64.9–73.8) and preoperative PSA 10.8ng/ml (IQR 7.8–15.6). Overall FFS at 3yr was 90.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 84.2–97.3]. When stratified for the NCCN risk group, 3-yr outcomes were 84.7% (95% CI 71.4–100) in high risk and 93.3% (95% CI 86.8–100) in intermediate risk. At last follow-up, incontinence defined as any pad use was 0/69 (0%) and erectile dysfunction (defined as erections insufficient for penetration) was 5/31 (16.1%). Limitations include lack of long-term outcomes. Conclusions Focal cryotherapy primarily for anterior intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer results in good rates of cancer control and low rates of treatment-related side effects. Patient summary In this multicentre study of 122 patients undergoing focal cryotherapy for medium- to high-risk prostate cancer, at 3yr, no patient died from their cancer whilst failure-free survival, was approximately 90%. None of the patients needed pads for managing urine leakage, although 16% had erection problems.

Objective To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. Materials and methods In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate®500) (March/2007–November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6–12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. Results 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment (p = 0.019). Conclusion Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours.

IntroductionSurvival in men diagnosed with de novo synchronous metastatic prostate cancer has increased following the use of upfront systemic treatment, using chemotherapy and other novel androgen receptor targeted agents, in addition to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Local cytoreductive and metastasis-directed interventions are hypothesised to confer additional survival benefit. In this setting, IP2-ATLANTA will explore progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes with the addition of sequential multimodal local and metastasis-directed treatments compared with standard care alone.MethodsA phase II, prospective, multicentre, three-arm randomised controlled trial incorporating an embedded feasibility pilot. All men with new histologically diagnosed, hormone-sensitive, metastatic prostate cancer, within 4 months of commencing ADT and of performance status 0 to 2 are eligible. Patients will be randomised to Control (standard of care (SOC)) OR Intervention 1 (minimally invasive ablative therapy to prostate±pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND)) OR Intervention 2 (cytoreductive radical prostatectomy±PLND OR prostate radiotherapy±pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT)). Metastatic burden will be prespecified using the Chemohormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease (CHAARTED) definition. Men with low burden disease in intervention arms are eligible for metastasis-directed therapy, in the form of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) or surgery. Standard systemic therapy will be administered in all arms with ADT±upfront systemic chemotherapy or androgen receptor agents. Patients will be followed-up for a minimum of 2 years. Primary outcome: PFS. Secondary outcomes include predictive factors for PFS and overall survival; urinary, sexual and rectal side effects. Embedded feasibility sample size is 80, with 918 patients required in the main phase II component. Study recruitment commenced in April 2019, with planned follow-up completed by April 2024.Ethics and disseminationApproved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee Wales-5 (19/WA0005). Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03763253; ISCRTN58401737

Focal therapy aims to treat areas of cancer to confer oncological control whilst reducing treatment-related functional detriment.To report oncological outcomes and adverse events following focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for treating nonmetastatic prostate cancer.An analysis of 1379 patients with ≥6 mo of follow-up prospectively recorded in the HIFU Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) registry from 13 UK centres (2005-2020) was conducted. Five or more years of follow-up was available for 325 (24%) patients. Focal HIFU therapy used a transrectal ultrasound-guided device (Sonablate; Sonacare Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA).Failure-free survival (FFS) was primarily defined as avoidance of no evidence of disease to require salvage whole-gland or systemic treatment, or metastases or prostate cancer-specific mortality. Differences in FFS between D'Amico risk groups were determined using a log-rank analysis. Adverse events were reported using Clavien-Dindo classification.The median (interquartile range) age was 66 (60-71) yr and prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 (4.9-9.4) ng/ml with D'Amico intermediate risk in 65% (896/1379) and high risk in 28% (386/1379). The overall median follow-up was 32 (17-58) mo; for those with ≥5 yr of follow-up, it was 82 (72-94). A total of 252 patients had repeat focal treatment due to residual or recurrent cancer; overall 92 patients required salvage whole-gland treatment. Kaplan-Meier 7-yr FFS was 69% (64-74%). Seven-year FFS in intermediate- and high-risk cancers was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62-75%) and 65% (95% CI 56-74%; p = 0.3). Clavien-Dindo2 adverse events occurred in 0.5% (7/1379). The median 10-yr follow-up is lacking.Focal HIFU in carefully selected patients with clinically significant prostate cancer, with six and three of ten patients having, respectively, intermediate- and high-risk cancer, has good cancer control in the medium term.Focal high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment to areas of prostate with cancer can provide an alternative to treating the whole prostate. This treatment modality has good medium-term cancer control over 7 yr, although 10-yr data are not yet available.

For localised prostate cancer, focal therapy offers an organ-sparing alternative to radical treatments (radiotherapy or prostatectomy). Currently, there is no randomised comparative effectiveness data evaluating cancer control of both strategies.Following the eligibility criteria PSA 20 ng/mL, Gleason score ≤ 7 and T-stage ≤ T2c, we included 830 radical (440 radiotherapy, 390 prostatectomy) and 530 focal therapy (cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound or high-dose-rate brachytherapy) patients treated between 2005 and 2018 from multicentre registries in the Netherlands and the UK. A propensity score weighted (PSW) analysis was performed to compare failure-free survival (FFS), with failure defined as salvage treatment, metastatic disease, systemic treatment (androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy), or progression to watchful waiting. The secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Median (IQR) follow-up in each cohort was 55 (28-83) and 62 (42-83) months, respectively.At baseline, radical patients had higher PSA (10.3 versus 7.9) and higher-grade disease (31% ISUP 3 versus 11%) compared to focal patients. After PSW, all covariates were balanced (SMD 0.1). 6-year weighted FFS was higher after radical therapy (80.3%, 95% CI 73.9-87.3) than after focal therapy (72.8%, 95% CI 66.8-79.8) although not statistically significant (p = 0.1). 6-year weighted OS was significantly lower after radical therapy (93.4%, 95% CI 90.1-95.2 versus 97.5%, 95% CI 94-99.9; p = 0.02). When compared in a three-way analysis, focal and LRP patients had a higher risk of treatment failure than EBRT patients (p 0.001), but EBRT patients had a higher risk of mortality than focal patients (p = 0.008).Within the limitations of a cohort-based analysis in which residual confounders are likely to exist, we found no clinically relevant difference in cancer control conferred by focal therapy compared to radical therapy at 6 years.

INTRODUCTION: The traditional double blind RCT is the 'gold standard' trial design. For a variety of reasons, these designs often fail to accrue enough participants to conclude. This is particularly challenging in localized prostate cancer. The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) trial design may represent an alternative approach to delivering robust comparative data in prostate cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODS: IP3-PROSPECT is a cmRCT designed to test multiple prostate cancer interventions from eligible men in one cohort. Key to the design is two points of consent. First, at point of consent one, men referred for prostate cancer investigations are invited to join the cohort. They may then be randomly invited at a later date to consider an intervention at point of consent two. In the pilot phase we will test the acceptability and feasibility of developing the cohort.RESULTS: Acceptability and feasibility of the study will be measured by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The primary outcome measure is the rate of consent to inclusion to the IP3-PROSPECT cohort. Secondary outcome measures include the completeness of data collection at sites and return rates of patient questionnaires. We will also interview patients and healthcare professionals to explore their thoughts on the implementation, practicality and efficiency of IP3-PROSPECT.CONCLUSION: The IP3-PROSPECT study will evaluate the cmRCT design in prostate cancer. Initially we will pilot the design, assessing for acceptability and feasibility. The cmRCT is an innovative design that offers potential for building a modern comparative evidence base for prostate cancer.

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

Organ preserving management is common place in renal cancer, breast cancer and many other solid organ tumours. Current strategies in managing intermediate risk prostate cancer include either whole gland treatment, in the form of radical radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy, or active surveillance. The former is associated with significant post-treatment functional morbidity, whilst the latter associated with the burden of surveillance activity and patient anxiety. Focal therapy would logically fit as a middle ground for suitable patients in whom treatment would be recommended, but where much better functional outcomes may be possible. Ideally this comes without restricting the successful prevention of harm from the cancer. Historically limitations in developing tissue preserving focal therapy strategies in prostate cancer, were due to inaccuracies in tumour characterisation prior to treatment and during follow up. Consequently for example many patients undergoing an active surveillance strategy were being upgraded and upstaged within a short period. Recently high level evidence supporting the use of MRI and targeted biopsies, in particular the PROMIS and PRECISION trials have strengthened clinician confidence in accurate disease characterisation, thus making focal therapy to become a more feasible management option. With improved diagnostic strategies and the publication of reassuring medium term oncological and functional outcomes after focal therapy for intermediate risk prostate cancer, has the time come to require consideration of focal therapy within our multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings and with patients? In this review we will consider patient selection and the evidence for the various focal ablation options as well as the surveillance of these patients after treatment. The forthcoming trials to determine comparative effectiveness will be discussed.

Introduction Focal therapy (FT) targets individual areas of cancer within the prostate, providing oncological control with minimal side-effects. Early evidence demonstrates encouraging short-medium-term outcomes. With no randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing FT to radical therapies, Comparative Healthcare Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (CHRONOS) will compare the cancer control of these two strategies. Patients and methods CHRONOS is a parallel phase II RCT for patients with clinically significant non-metastatic prostate cancer, dependent upon clinician/patient decision, patients will enrol into either CHRONOS-A or CHRONOS-B. CHRONOS-A will randomize patients to either radical treatment or FT. CHRONOS-B is a multi-arm, multistage RCT comparing focal therapy alone to FT with neoadjuvant agents that might improve the current focal therapy outcomes. An internal pilot will determine the feasibility of, and compliance to, randomization. The proposed definitive study plans to recruit and randomize 1190 patients into CHRONOS-A and 1260 patients into CHRONOS-B. Results Primary outcome in CHRONOS-A is progression-free survival (transition to salvage local or systemic therapy, development of metastases or prostate-cancer-related mortality) and in CHRONOS-B is failure-free survival (includes the above definition and recurrence of clinically significant prostate cancer after initial FT). Secondary outcomes include adverse events, health economics and functional outcomes measured using validated questionnaires. CHRONOS is powered to assess non-inferiority of FT compared to radical therapy in CHRONOS-A, and superiority of neoadjuvant agents with FT in CHRONOS-B. Conclusion CHRONOS will assess the oncological outcomes after FT compared to radical therapy and whether neoadjuvant treatments improve cancer control following one FT session.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The gold standard for surveillance in follow up of NMIBC is cystoscopy, combined with cytology. However, the established sensitivity of cytology is very low. ADXBLADDER i...

Background All risk stratification strategies in cancer overlook a spectrum of disease. The Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS) provides a unique opportunity to explore cancers that are overlooked by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Objective To summarise attributes of cancers that are systematically overlooked by mpMRI. Design, setting, and participants PROMIS tested performance of mpMRI and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy, using 5 mm template mapping (TPM) biopsy as the reference standard. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Outcomes were overall and maximum Gleason scores, maximum cancer core length (MCCL), and prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD). Cancer attributes were compared between cancers that were overlooked and those that were detected. Results and limitations Of men with cancer, 7% (17/230; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4–12%) had significant disease overlooked by mpMRI according to definition 1 (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 of any length or MCCL ≥ 6 mm of any grade) and 13% (44/331; 95% CI 9.8–17%) according to definition 2 (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length or MCCL ≥ 4 mm). In comparison, TRUS-guided biopsy overlooked 52% (119/230; 95% CI 45–58%) of significant disease by definition 1 and 40% (132/331; 95% CI 35–45%) by definition 2. Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI had significantly lower overall and maximum Gleason scores (p = 0.0007; p 3 + 4 (Gleason Grade Groups 3–5; 95% CI 0–6.4%) or maximum Gleason score > 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Groups 4–5; 95% CI 0–8.0%) on TPM biopsy were undetected by mpMRI. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.15 reduced the proportion of men with undetected cancer to 5% (12/230; 95% CI 2.7–8.9%) for definition 1 and 9% (30/331; 95% CI 6.2–13%) for definition 2. Application of a PSAD threshold of 0.10 reduced the proportion of men with undetected disease to 3% (6/230; 95% CI 1.0–5.6%) for definition 1 cancer and to 3% (11/331; 95% CI 1.7–5.9%) for definition 2 cancer. Limitations were post hoc analysis and uncertain significance of undetected lesions. Conclusions Overall, a small proportion of cancers are overlooked by mpMRI, with estimates ranging from 4.4% (lower boundary of 95% CI for definition 1) to 17% (upper boundary of 95% CI for definition 2). Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI are of lower grade and shorter length than cancers that are detected. Patient summary Prostate cancers that are undetected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are smaller and less aggressive than those that are detected, and none of the most aggressive cancers are overlooked by MRI.