Combining targeted and systematic prostate biopsy improves prostate cancer detection and correlation with the whole mount histopathology in biopsy naïve and previous negative biopsy patients

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for previous negative biopsy (PNB) cohorts with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) after positive multiparametric (mp) magnetic-resonance-imaging (MRI) often favour the fusion-guided targeted prostate-biopsy (TB) only approach for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥3 lesions. However, recommendations lack direct biopsy performance comparison within biopsy naïve (BN) vs. PNB patients and its prognostication of the whole mount pathology report (WMPR), respectively. We suppose, that the combination of TB and concomitant TRUS-systematic biopsy (SB) improves the PCa detection rate of PI-RADS 2, 3, 4 or 5 lesions and the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-grade predictability of the WMPR in BN- and PNB patients. METHODS: Patients with suspicious mpMRI, elevated prostate-specific-antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination were included. All PI-RADS reports were intramurally reviewed for biopsy planning. We compared the PI-RADS score substratified TB, SB or combined approach (TB/SB) associated BN- and PNB-PCa detection rate. Furthermore, we assessed the ISUP-grade variability between biopsy cores and the WMPR. RESULTS: According to BN (n = 499) vs. PNB (n = 314) patients, clinically significant (cs) PCa was detected more frequently by the TB/SB approach (62 vs. 43%) than with the TB (54 vs. 34%) or SB (57 vs. 34%) (all p < 0.0001) alone. Furthermore, we observed that the TB/SB strategy detects a significantly higher number of csPCa within PI-RADS 3, 4 or 5 reports, both in BN and PNB men. In contrast, applied biopsy techniques were equally effective to detect csPCa within PI-RADS 2 lesions. In case of csPCa diagnosis the TB approach was more often false-negative in PNB patients (BN 11% vs. PNB 19%; p = 0.02). The TB/SB technique showed in general significantly less upgrading, whereas a higher agreement was only observed for the total and BN patient cohort. CONCLUSION: Despite csPCa is more frequently found in BN patients, the TB/SB method always detected a significantly higher number of csPCa within PI-RADS 3, 4 or 5 reports of our BN and PNB group. The TB/SB strategy predicts the ISUP-grade best in the total and BN cohort and in general shows the lowest upgrading rates, emphasizing its value not only in BN but also PNB patients

Benefit of second-line therapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a tri-center propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND: The level of evidence for palliative second-line therapy in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (aESCC) is limited. This is the first study that reports efficacy data comparing second-line therapy + active symptom control (ASC) versus ASC alone in aESCC. METHODS: We conducted a tri-center retrospective cohort study (n = 166) including patients with aESCC who had experienced disease progression on palliative first-line therapy. A propensity score model using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was implemented for comparative efficacy analysis of overall survival (OS) in patients with second-line + ASC (n = 92, 55%) versus ASC alone (n = 74, 45%). RESULTS: The most frequent second-line regimens used were docetaxel (36%) and paclitaxel (18%). In unadjusted primary endpoint analysis, second-line + ASC was associated with significantly longer OS compared with ASC alone [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35–0.69, p < 0.0001]. However, patients in the second-line + ASC group were characterized by more favorable baseline features including a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, a longer first-line treatment duration and lower C-reactive protein levels. After rigorous adjusting for baseline confounders by re-weighting the data with the IPTW the favorable association between second-line and longer OS weakened but prevailed. The median OS was 6.1 months in the second-line + ASC group and 3.2 months in the ASC group, respectively (IPTW-adjusted HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24–0.69, p = 0.001). Importantly, the benefit of second-line was consistent across several clinical subgroups, including patients with ECOG performance status ⩾1 and age ⩾65 years. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events associated with palliative second-line therapy were hematological toxicities. CONCLUSION: This real-world study supports the concept that systemic second-line therapy prolongs survival in patients with aESCC