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

What is the optimal definition of misclassification in patients with very low-risk prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance? Results from a multi-institutional series

Background: The risk of unfavorable prostate cancer in active surveillance (AS) candidates is nonnegligible. However, what represents an adverse pathologic outcome in this setting is unknown. We aimed at assessing the optimal definition of misclassification and its effect on recurrence in AS candidates treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). Materials and methods: Overall, 1,710 patients eligible for AS according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance criteria treated with RP between 2000 and 2013 at 3 centers were evaluated. Patients were stratified according to pathology results at RP: organ-confined disease and pathologic Gleason score 6 (group 1); organ-confined disease and Gleason score 3 + 4 (group 2); and non organ -confined disease, Gleason score >= 4 + 3, and nodal invasion (group 3). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as 2 consecutive prostate specific antigen (PSA) >= 0.2 ng/ml. Kaplan-Meier curves assessed time to BCR. Multivariable Cox regression analyses tested the association between pathologic features and BCR. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified the predictors of adverse pathologic characteristics. Results: Overall, 926 (54.2%), 653 (33.0%), and 220 (12.9%) patients were categorized in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Median followup was 32.2 months. The 5-year BCR-free survival rate was 94.2%. Patients in group 3 had lower BCR-free survival rates compared with those in group 1 (79.1% vs. 97.0%, P = 10 ng/ml/ml were associated with higher risk of unfavorable pathologic characteristics (i.e., inclusion in group 3; all P = 4 + 3 or non organ-confined disease at final pathology were at increased risk of BCR. These individuals represent the real misclassified AS patients, who can be predicted based on older age and higher PSA density. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Focal therapy in localised prostate cancer: Real-world urological perspective explored in a cross-sectional European survey.

The urological community's opinion over focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) has never been assessed. Our aim was to investigate the current opinion on FT in the European urological community. A 25-item questionnaire was devised according to the Cherries checklist and distributed through SurveyMonkey using a web link from November 2016 to October 2017. After a pilot validation (n = 40 urologists), the survey was sent through EAU and 9 other national European urological societies mailing list. Twitter was also used. We received 484 replies from 51 countries. Almost half (44.8%, n = 217) stated FT would represent a step forward, and 52.0% (n = 252) would suggest FT to a patient. Almost three-quarters (70.8%, n = 343) agreed FT will become a standard option after improvements in patient selection (n = 66) or when its effectiveness will be proven (n = 78), or both (n = 199). Most frequently used definition of FT was treatment of all significant (life-threatening) cancer foci whilst leaving untreated the rest of the gland (39.3%, n = 190). FT use was considered as an alternative to whole-gland treatments by 29.7% (n = 144), and to AS by 25.0% (n = 121). On multivariate analysis, FT availability and publications were associated with a positive opinion on FT. Conversely, attending International congresses, treating high PCa volumes and high percentages of high-risk PCa was associated with a negative opinion. FT is considered as an attractive option for PCa treatment by the European urological community sampled by our survey. FT availability positively influences these thoughts. The present survey suggests whilst some early adopters already embraced FT, the relative majority of the urological community is prone to embrace FT in the near future, once current areas of debate are solved