MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy allows for equivalent cancer detection with significantly fewer needle cores in biopsy-naive men

PURPOSE:We aimed to investigate the efficiency and cancer detection of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) / ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided prostate biopsy in a cohort of biopsy-naive men compared with standard-of-care systematic extended sextant transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy.METHODS:From 2014 to 2016, 72 biopsy-naive men referred for initial prostate cancer evaluation who underwent MRI of the prostate were prospectively evaluated. Retrospective review was performed on 69 patients with lesions suspicious for malignancy who underwent MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy in addition to systematic extended sextant biopsy. Biometric, imaging, and pathology data from both the MRI-targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies were analyzed and compared.RESULTS:There were no significant differences in overall prostate cancer detection when comparing MRI-targeted biopsies to standard systematic biopsies (P = 0.39). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the distribution of severity of cancers based on grade groups in cases with cancer detection (P = 0.68). However, significantly fewer needle cores were taken during the MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy compared with systematic biopsy (63% less cores sampled, P < 0.001)CONCLUSION:In biopsy-naive men, MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy offers equal prostate cancer detection compared with systematic TRUS-guided biopsy with significantly fewer tissue cores using the targeted technique. This approach can potentially reduce morbidity in the future if used instead of systematic biopsy without sacrificing the ability to detect prostate cancer, particularly in cases with higher grade disease

Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project

To codify the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the interrogation of prostate neoplasia (PCa) in clinical practice and focal therapy (FT). An international collaborative consensus project was undertaken using the Delphi method among experts in the field of PCa. An online questionnaire was presented in three consecutive rounds and modified each round based on the comments provided by the experts. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to discuss and finalize the consensus results. mpMRI should be performed in patients with prior negative biopsies if clinical suspicion remains, but not instead of the PSA test, nor as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or mpMRI-targeted biopsies only. It is not recommended to use a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner without an endorectal or pelvic phased-array coil. mpMRI should be performed following standard biopsy-based PCa diagnosis in both the planning and follow-up of FT. If a lesion is seen, MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies should be performed for FT planning. Systematic biopsies are still required for FT planning in biopsy-naïve patients and for patients with residual PCa after FT. Standard repeat biopsies should be taken during the follow-up of FT. The final decision to perform FT should be based on histopathology. However, these consensus statements may differ for expert centers versus non-expert centers. The mpMRI is an important tool for characterizing and targeting PCa in clinical practice and FT. Standardization of acquisition and reading should be the main priority to guarantee consistent mpMRI quality throughout the urological communit

MRI-guided focal laser ablation of prostate cancer: a prospective single-arm, single-center trial with 3 years of follow-up

PURPOSEWe aimed to assess post-interventional and 36-month follow-up results of a single-center, single-arm, in-bore phase I trial of focal laser ablation (FLA) guided by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).METHODSFLA procedures were done in-bore MRI using a transperineal approach. Primary endpoints were feasibility and safety expressed as lack of grade 3 complications. Secondary endpoints were changes in international prostate symptom score (IPSS), sexual health inventory for men (SHIM), quality of life (QoL) scores, and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels. Treatment outcomes were assessed by combined mpMRI-ultrasound fusion-guided and extended sextant systematic biopsy after 12, 24, and optionally after 36 months.RESULTSFifteen participants were included. Seven patients (46.67%) had Gleason 3+3 and 8 patients (53.33%) had Gleason 3+4 cancer. All patients tolerated the procedure well, and no grade 3/4 complications occurred. All grade 1 and 2 complications were transient and resolved completely. There was no significant change in mean IPSS from baseline (-1, p = 0.460) and QoL (0, p = 0.441) scores following FLA but there was a significant drop in mean SHIM scores (-2, p = 0.010) compared to pretreatment baselines. Mean PSA significantly decreased after FLA (-2.5, p < 0.001). Seven out of 15 patients (46.67%) had residual cancer in, adjacent, or in close proximity to the treatment area (1 × 4+3=7, 1 × 3+4=7, and 5 × 3+3=6). Four out of 15 patients (26.67%) underwent salvage therapy (2 repeat FLA, 2 radical prostatectomy).CONCLUSIONAfter 3 years of follow-up we conclude focal laser ablation is safe and feasible without significant complications

Clampless laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a step towards a harmless nephron-sparing surgery?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of our technique of clampless laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and its impact as an emerging treatment for small renal masses (SMRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively maintained database: data of 117 patients who consecutively underwent LPN at our Institution from January 2009 to December 2011 were studied. Patients were divided into 2 Groups based on operative technique: Group A: clampless-LPN (cl-LPN); Group B: conventional LPN (clamping of renal artery). Demographic and peri-operative data, complications, pre- and post-operative serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were registered and compared by Student&#8217;s t- and Chi-square-tests (p-values < 0.05 considered statistically significant). RESULTS: 41 patients were in Group A and 76 in Group B. Groups were comparable in terms of preoperative data except for tumour&#8217;s size (2.35 ± 1.10 vs. 3.19 ± 1.57, Group A vs. B, respectively, p = 0.0029). Concerning perioperative data, warm ischemia time (WIT) was 0 min. in all Group A cases; mean WIT in Group B was 20.90 ± 9.27 min. One case (2.4%) in Group A (central tumour) was converted to conventional LPN. Mean eGFR postoperative decrease was higher in Group B (0.17 ± 9.30 vs. 4.38 ± 11.37 mL/min., A vs B, respectively, p = 0.0445). CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the limits of the study, our results suggest that cl-LPN is a safe and effective technique, which allows surgeon to surgically treat SRMs even in case of complex location, without injuring kidney by ischemia

Molecular biomarkers in the context of focal therapy for prostate cancer: Recommendations of a delphi consensus from the focal therapy society

BACKGROUND: Focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is promising. However, long-term oncological results are awaited and there is no consensus on follow-up strategies. Molecular biomarkers (MB) may be useful in selecting, treating and following up men undergoing FT, though there is limited evidence in this field to guide practice. We aimed to conduct a consensus meeting, endorsed by the Focal Therapy Society, amongst a large group of experts, to understand the potential utility of MB in FT for localized PCa. METHODS: A 38-item questionnaire was built following a literature search. The authors then performed three rounds of a Delphi Consensus using DelphiManager, using the GRADE grid scoring system, followed by a face-to-face expert meeting. Three areas of interest were identified and covered concerning MB for FT, 1) the current/present role; 2) the potential/future role; 3) the recommended features for future studies. Consensus was defined using a 70% agreement threshold. RESULTS: Of 95 invited experts, 42 (44.2%) completed the three Delphi rounds. Twenty-four items reached a consensus and they were then approved at the meeting involving (N.=15) experts. Fourteen items reached a consensus on uncertainty, or they did not reach a consensus. They were re-discussed, resulting in a consensus (N.=3), a consensus on a partial agreement (N.=1), and a consensus on uncertainty (N.=10). A final list of statements were derived from the approved and discussed items, with the addition of three generated statements, to provide guidance regarding MB in the context of FT for localized PCa. Research efforts in this field should be considered a priority. CONCLUSIONS: The present study detailed an initial consensus on the use of MB in FT for PCa. This is until evidence becomes available on the subject

MRI in active surveillance: a critical review

INTRODUCTION: Recent technological advancements and the introduction of modern anatomical and functional sequences have led to a growing role for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the detection, risk assessment and monitoring of early prostate cancer. This includes men who have been diagnosed with lower-risk prostate cancer and are looking at the option of active surveillance (AS). The purpose of this paper is to review the recent evidence supporting the use of mpMRI at different time points in AS, as well as to discuss some of its potential pitfalls. METHODS: A combination of electronic and manual searching methods were used to identify recent, important papers investigating the role of mpMRI in AS. RESULTS: The high negative predictive value of mpMRI can be exploited for the selection of AS candidates. In addition, mpMRI can be efficiently used to detect higher risk disease in patients already on surveillance. CONCLUSION: Although there is an ongoing debate regarding the precise nature of its optimal implementation, mpMRI is a promising risk stratification tool and should be considered for men on AS