MRI-guided pelvic lymph node biopsy via transrectal approach in prostate cancer

© 2020 Lymph node assessment in prostate cancer is most commonly performed at the time of radical prostatectomy. We present the case of pre-operative pelvic lymph node sampling with the use of MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at the time of prostate biopsy. Lymph node pathology revealed metastatic, poorly differentiated prostate cancer, concurrent with Gleason 4 + 5 disease showing perineural invasion. The use of MRI fusion guided biopsy for nodal sampling may be an effective method pre-operative staging and treatment planning for prostate adenocarcinoma

Focal therapy for prostate cancer: Recent advances and future directions

© 2020, Millennium Medical Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men after skin cancer. Owing to the rising popularity of prostate-specific antigen screening, large numbers of patients are receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer and undergoing whole-gland treatment. Some patients with a diagnosis of low-risk, localized disease may not benefit from whole-gland treatment, however, given its known morbidity. In response to advances in prostate imaging and evidence suggesting that the prognosis in prostate cancer is related to the index lesion, many patients have begun to opt for focal therapy, which targets a lesion rather than the entire prostate. This “middle ground” of therapy, between active surveillance and whole-gland treatment, is appealing to patients because the risk for side effects is believed to be lower with focal therapy than with whole-gland treatment. This review discusses the oncologic rationale for focal therapy in localized prostate cancer, examines the major therapy modalities, and addresses future directions

Making a case "for" focal therapy of the prostate in intermediate risk prostate cancer: Current perspective and ongoing trials

Focal therapy is growing as an alternative management options for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Parallel to the increasing popularity of active surveillance (AS) as a treatment for low-risk disease, there has been an increased interest towards providing focal therapy for patients with intermediate-risk disease. Focal therapy can act as a logical "middle ground" in patients who seek treatment while minimizing potential side effects of definitive whole-gland treatment. The aim of the current review is to define the rationale of focal therapy in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and highlight the importance of patient selection in focal therapy candidacy.United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA ; Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF) ; Roche Holding ; Genentech ; American Association for Dental Research ; Colgate-Palmolive Compan

Combined MRI-targeted Plus Systematic Confirmatory Biopsy Improves Risk Stratification for Patients Enrolling on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

© 2020 Elsevier Inc. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of combined MRI-targeted plus systematic 12-core biopsy (Cbx) to aid in the selection of patients for active surveillance (AS). Methods: From July 2007 to January 2020, patients with Gleason Grade Group (GG) 1 or GG 2 prostate cancer were referred to our center for AS consideration. All patients underwent an MRI and confirmatory combined MRI-targeted plus systematic biopsy (Cbx), and AS outcomes based on Cbx results were compared. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of AS failure, defined as progression to ≥ GG3 disease on follow-up biopsies. Results: Of 579 patients referred for AS, 79.3% (459/579) and 20.7% (120/579) had an initial diagnosis of GG1 and GG2 disease, respectively. Overall, 43.2% of patients (250/579) were upgraded on confirmatory Cbx, with 19.2% (111/579) upgraded to ≥ GG3. For the 226 patients followed on AS, 32.7% (74/226) had benign, 45.6% (103/226) had GG1, and 21.7% (49/226) had GG2 results on confirmatory Cbx. In total, 28.8% (65/226) of patients eventually progressed to ≥ GG3, with a median time to AS failure of 89 months. The median time from confirmatory Cbx to AS failure for the negative, GG1, and GG2 groups were 97, 97, and 32 months, respectively (p \u3c.001). On multivariable regression, only age (hazard ratio 1.06 [1.02-1.11], p \u3c.005) and GG on confirmatory Cbx (hazard ratio 2.75 [1.78-4.26], p \u3c.005) remained as positive predictors of AS failure. Conclusion: The confirmatory combined MRI-targeted plus systematic biopsy provides useful information for the risk stratification of patients at the time of AS enrollment