Predictors of Prostate Cancer at Fusion Biopsy: The Role of Positive Family History, Hypertension, Diabetes, and Body Mass Index

Background: PSA density and an elevated PI-RADS score are among the strongest predictors of prostate cancer (PCa) in a fusion biopsy. Positive family history, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity have also been associated with the risk of developing PCa. We aim to identify predictors of the prostate cancer detection rate (CDR) in a series of patients undergoing a fusion biopsy. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 736 consecutive patients who underwent an elastic fusion biopsy from 2020 to 2022. Targeted biopsies (2–4 cores per MRI target) were followed by systematic mapping (10–12 cores). Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as ISUP score ≥ 2. Uni- and multi-variable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of CDR among age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, positive family history, PSA, a positive digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA density ≥ 0.15, previous negative biopsy status, PI-RADS score, and size of MRI lesion. Results: The median patients’ age was 71 years, and median PSA was 6.6 ng/mL. A total of 20% of patients had a positive digital rectal examination. Suspicious lesions in mpMRI were scored as 3, 4, and 5 in 14.9%, 55.0%, and 17.5% of cases, respectively. The CDR was 63.2% for all cancers and 58.7% for csPCa. Only age (OR 1.04, p < 0.001), a positive DRE (OR 1.75, p = 0.04), PSA density (OR 2.68, p < 0.001), and elevated PI-RADS score (OR 4.02, p = 0.003) were significant predictors of the CDR in the multivariable analysis for overall PCa. The same associations were found for csPCa. The size of an MRI lesion was associated with the CDR only in uni-variable analysis (OR 1.07, p < 0.001). BMI, hypertension, diabetes, and a positive family history were not predictors of PCa. Conclusions: In a series of patients selected for a fusion biopsy, positive family history, hypertension, diabetes, or BMI are not predictors of PCa detection. PSA-density and PI-RADS score are confirmed to be strong predictors of the CDR

Safety and Feasibility of Transperineal Targeted Microwave Ablation for Low- to Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy has emerged as an interesting option for localized low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Targeted microwave ablation (TMA) is a novel FT modality involving targeted delivery of microwave energy under multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound guidance. OBJECTIVE: To describe the step-by-step procedure for TMA and report early functional outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was an experimental phase 1–2 trial in 11 patients diagnosed with a single, MRI-visible PCa lesion of up to 12 mm, scored as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 1 or 2. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Transperineal TMA under MRI/ultrasound image fusion guidance. MEASUREMENTS: We recorded patient and PCa features; intraoperative and postoperative parameters; pain (Visual Analog Scale [VAS]) and adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0); and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scores at 1 wk and 1, 3, and 6 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median patient age was 67 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 18). Median PSA was 5.4 ng/ml (IQR 1.8), median prostate volume was 51 cm(3) (IQR 35), and median lesion size on MRI was 10 mm (IQR 4). Ten patients had GG 2 PCa and one had GG 1 disease. The median procedure time was 40 min (IQR 30). No intraoperative complications were reported. All treatments were performed on a day-case basis and no patients were discharged with a urinary catheter. Postoperatively, no grade ≥2 complications were reported. No significant changes in PSA (p = 0.46), IPSS (p = 0.39), or IIEF-5 scores (p = 0.18) scores were reported. The postoperative VAS score at 24 h was 0 for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: TMA is safe, feasible, and well tolerated in patients with low- to intermediate-risk PCa. Oncological outcomes are still awaited. PATIENT SUMMARY: Targeted microwave therapy is safe and feasible for selected patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer. The procedure is well tolerated and does not require a urinary catheter after the procedure. Cancer control outcomes are still awaited

Follow-up on patients with initial negative mpMRI target and systematic biopsy for PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions – an EAU-YAU study enhancing prostate cancer detection

Purpose: To investigate the detection and predictors of prostate cancer (PCA) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA) in patients with positive multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) followed by a negative MRI – guided target biopsy (TB) and systematic biopsy (SB). // Materials and methods: This retrospective multicenter study included 694 patients from 10 tertiary referral centers with an initial positive mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 3) and negative results on both MRI-TB and SB. Patients were classified into three groups based on follow-up: Group 1 (prostate re-biopsy without new mpMRI), Group 2 (standardized second prostate mpMRI and subsequent re-biopsy), and Group 3 (follow-up with mpMRIs and biopsy based on clinical and radiological triggers). The primary outcomes were the detection of any PCA and csPCA during follow up. Study groups were compared according to their probability of PCA and csPCA assessed with the ERSPC-MRI risk calculator. Statistical analysis included Kaplan – Meier analysis, Cox regression, and multivariable analysis for the detection of (cs)PCa. // Results: The overall detection of PCA and csPCA was 26.8% and 19.3%, respectively, with varying rates in different PI-RADS groups. Group 3 had the highest 2-year and 5-year PCA–free survival (94 and 84%) and csPCA – free survival (96 and 86%). Multivariable analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of PCA and csPCA in Group 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (p < 0.01). Clinical and radiological predictors for PCA and csPCA included higher age, prostate volume, PI-RADS score, the presence of atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP), and a smaller number of TB and SB performed during the initial biopsy. Study limitations, include the retrospective design and reliance on clinical and radiological triggers for follow–up decisions. // Conclusions: Patients with positive mpMRI but negative TB and SB results exhibit varying rates of PCA and csPCA depending on the follow up scheme. Tailored follow-up strategies are essential for optimal management in this clinical scenario

Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients : Outcomes for a Large Contemporary Cohort and a Matched Comparison to Patients Without a Transplant

It is unknown whether renal transplant receipt (RTR) status can affect perioperative and oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to evaluate oncological and functional outcomes of RTR patients treated with RP for cN0M0 prostate cancer (PCa) via comparison with a no-RTR cohort. RTR patients who had undergone RP at seven European institutions during 2001-2022 were identified. A multi-institutional cohort of no-RTR patients treated with RP during 2004-2022 served as the comparator group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:4 was used to match no-RTR patients to the RTR cohort according to age, prostate-specific antigen, and final pathology features. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox, logistic, and Poisson log-linear regression models to test the outcomes of interest. After PSM, we analyzed data for 102 RTR and 408 no-RTR patients. RTR patients experienced higher estimated blood loss (EBL), longer length of hospital stay (LOS) and time to catheter removal, higher postoperative complication rates, and a lower continence recovery rate (all p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, RTR independently predicted unfavorable operative time (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.25), LOS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.86), EBL (OR 2.24, 95% CI 2.18-2.30), and time to catheter removal (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.68-2.21), but not complications or continence recovery. There were no significant differences for any oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence, local or systemic progression) between the RTR and no-RTR groups. While no PCa deaths were recorded, the overall mortality rate was significantly higher in the RTR group (17% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001). Conclusions and clinical implications: Although RP is feasible for RTR patients, the procedure poses non-negligible surgical challenges, with longer operative time and LOS and higher EBL, but no major differences in terms of complications and continence recovery. The RTR group had similar oncological outcomes to the no-RTR group but significantly higher overall mortality related to causes other than PCa. Therefore, careful selection for RP is required among candidates with previous RTR. Removal of the prostate for prostate cancer is possible in patients who have had a kidney transplant, and cancer control outcomes are comparable to those for the general population. However, transplant patients have a higher risk of death from causes other than prostate cancer and the prostate surgery is likely to be more challenging

Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Outcomes for a Large Contemporary Cohort and a Matched Comparison to Patients Without a Transplant

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It is unknown whether renal transplant receipt (RTR) status can affect perioperative and oncological outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP). Our aim was to evaluate oncological and functional outcomes of RTR patients treated with RP for cN0M0 prostate cancer (PCa) via comparison with a no-RTR cohort. METHODS: RTR patients who had undergone RP at seven European institutions during 2001-2022 were identified. A multi-institutional cohort of no-RTR patients treated with RP during 2004-2022 served as the comparator group. Propensity score matching (PSM) at a ratio of 1:4 was used to match no-RTR patients to the RTR cohort according to age, prostate-specific antigen, and final pathology features. We used Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox, logistic, and Poisson log-linear regression models to test the outcomes of interest. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: After PSM, we analyzed data for 102 RTR and 408 no-RTR patients. RTR patients experienced higher estimated blood loss (EBL), longer length of hospital stay (LOS) and time to catheter removal, higher postoperative complication rates, and a lower continence recovery rate (all p < 0.001). On multivariable analyses, RTR independently predicted unfavorable operative time (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.25), LOS (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.86), EBL (OR 2.24, 95% CI 2.18-2.30), and time to catheter removal (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.68-2.21), but not complications or continence recovery. There were no significant differences for any oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence, local or systemic progression) between the RTR and no-RTR groups. While no PCa deaths were recorded, the overall mortality rate was significantly higher in the RTR group (17% vs 0.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although RP is feasible for RTR patients, the procedure poses non-negligible surgical challenges, with longer operative time and LOS and higher EBL, but no major differences in terms of complications and continence recovery. The RTR group had similar oncological outcomes to the no-RTR group but significantly higher overall mortality related to causes other than PCa. Therefore, careful selection for RP is required among candidates with previous RTR. PATIENT SUMMARY: Removal of the prostate for prostate cancer is possible in patients who have had a kidney transplant, and cancer control outcomes are comparable to those for the general population. However, transplant patients have a higher risk of death from causes other than prostate cancer and the prostate surgery is likely to be more challenging

Unilateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Prostate Cancer Patients Diagnosed in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy: A Study That Challenges the Dogma

PURPOSE Bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection at the time of radical prostatectomy is the current standard of care if pelvic lymph node dissection is indicated; often, however, pelvic lymph node dissection is performed in pN0 disease. With the more accurate staging achieved with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis, the indication for bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection may be revised. We aimed to assess the feasibility of unilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection in the era of modern prostate cancer imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS We analyzed a multi-institutional data set of men with cN0 disease diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy who underwent prostatectomy and bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection. The outcome of the study was lymph node invasion contralateral to the prostatic lobe with worse disease features, ie, dominant lobe. Logistic regression to predict lymph node invasion contralateral to the dominant lobe was generated and internally validated. RESULTS Overall, data from 2,253 patients were considered. Lymph node invasion was documented in 302 (13%) patients; 83 (4%) patients had lymph node invasion contralateral to the dominant prostatic lobe. A model including prostate-specific antigen, maximum diameter of the index lesion, seminal vesicle invasion on magnetic resonance imaging, International Society of Urological Pathology grade in the nondominant side, and percentage of positive cores in the nondominant side achieved an area under the curve of 84% after internal validation. With a cutoff of contralateral lymph node invasion of 1%, 602 (27%) contralateral pelvic lymph node dissections would be omitted with only 1 (1.2%) lymph node invasion missed. CONCLUSIONS Pelvic lymph node dissection could be omitted contralateral to the prostate lobe with worse disease features in selected patients. We propose a model that can help avoid contralateral pelvic lymph node dissection in almost one-third of cases

An updated model for predicting side-specific extraprostatic extension in the era of MRI-targeted biopsy

Purpose: Accurate prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) is pivotal for surgical planning. Herein, we aimed to provide an updated model for predicting EPE among patients diagnosed with MRI-targeted biopsy.// Materials and methods: We analyzed a multi-institutional dataset of men with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed by MRI-targeted biopsy and subsequently underwent prostatectomy. To develop a side-specific predictive model, we considered the prostatic lobes separately. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was fitted to predict side-specific EPE. The decision curve analysis was used to evaluate the net clinical benefit. Finally, a regression tree was employed to identify three risk categories to assist urologists in selecting candidates for nerve-sparing, incremental nerve sparing and non-nerve-sparing surgery.// Results: Overall, data from 3169 hemi-prostates were considered, after the exclusion of prostatic lobes with no biopsy-documented tumor. EPE was present on final pathology in 1,094 (34%) cases. Among these, MRI was able to predict EPE correctly in 568 (52%) cases. A model including PSA, maximum diameter of the index lesion, presence of EPE on MRI, highest ISUP grade in the ipsilateral hemi-prostate, and percentage of positive cores in the ipsilateral hemi-prostate achieved an AUC of 81% after internal validation. Overall, 566, 577, and 2,026 observations fell in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups for EPE, as identified by the regression tree. The EPE rate across the groups was: 5.1%, 14.9%, and 48% for the low-, intermediate- and high-risk group, respectively.// Conclusion: In this study we present an update of the first side-specific MRI-based nomogram for the prediction of extraprostatic extension together with updated risk categories to help clinicians in deciding on the best approach to nerve-preservation