A Multivariable Approach Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Avoid a Protocol-based Prostate Biopsy in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer-Data from the International Multicenter Prospective PRIAS Study

Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.BACKGROUND: There is ongoing discussion whether a multivariable approach including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can safely prevent unnecessary protocol-advised repeat biopsy during active surveillance (AS). OBJECTIVE: To determine predictors for grade group (GG) reclassification in patients undergoing an MRI-informed prostate biopsy (MRI-Bx) during AS and to evaluate whether a confirmatory biopsy can be omitted in patients diagnosed with upfront MRI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Prostate cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study is a multicenter prospective study of patients on AS (www.prias-project.org). We selected all patients undergoing MRI-Bx (targeted ± systematic biopsy) during AS. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A time-dependent Cox regression analysis was used to determine the predictors of GG progression/reclassification in patients undergoing MRI-Bx. A sensitivity analysis and a multivariable logistic regression analysis were also performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1185 patients underwent 1488 MRI-Bx sessions. The time-dependent Cox regression analysis showed that age (per 10 yr, hazard ratio [HR] 0.84 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.71-0.99]), MRI outcome (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PIRADS] 3 vs negative HR 2.46 [95% CI 1.56-3.88], PIRADS 4 vs negative HR 3.39 [95% CI 2.28-5.05], and PIRADS 5 vs negative HR 4.95 [95% CI 3.25-7.56]), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (per 0.1 ng/ml cm3, HR 1.20 [95% CI 1.12-1.30]), and percentage positive cores on the last systematic biopsy (per 10%, HR 1.16 [95% CI 1.10-1.23]) were significant predictors of GG reclassification. Of the patients with negative MRI and a PSA density of <0.15 ng/ml cm3 (n = 315), 3% were reclassified to GG ≥2 and 0.6% to GG ≥3. At the confirmatory biopsy, reclassification to GG ≥2 and ≥3 was observed in 23% and 7% of the patients diagnosed without upfront MRI and in 19% and 6% of the patients diagnosed with upfront MRI, respectively. The multivariable analysis showed no significant difference in upgrading at the confirmatory biopsy between patients diagnosed with or without upfront MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Age, MRI outcome, PSA density, and percentage positive cores are significant predictors of reclassification at an MRI-informed biopsy. Patients with negative MRI and a PSA density of <0.15 ng/ml cm3 can safely omit a protocol-based prostate biopsy, whereas in other patients, a multivariable approach is advised. Being diagnosed with upfront MRI appears not to significantly affect reclassification risk; hence, a confirmatory MRI-Bx cannot totally be omitted yet. PATIENT SUMMARY: A protocol-based prostate biopsy while on active surveillance can be omitted in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate-specific antigen density <0.15 ng/ml cm3. A confirmatory biopsy cannot simply be omitted in all patients diagnosed with upfront MRI.Peer reviewe

MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis

Background Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. Methods In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Results A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P&lt;0.001). Conclusions The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .)

Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer - results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure

Active surveillance (AS) is broadly described as a management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, but semantic heterogeneity exists in both the literature and in guidelines. To address this issue, a panel of leading prostate cancer specialists in the field of AS participated in a consensus-forming project using a modified Delphi method to reach international consensus on definitions of terms related to this management option. An iterative three-round sequence of online questionnaires designed to address 61 individual items was completed by each panel member. Consensus was considered to be reached if >= 70% of the experts agreed on a definition. To facilitate a common understanding among all experts involved and resolve potential ambiguities, a face-to-face consensus meeting was held between Delphi survey rounds two and three. Convenience sampling was used to construct the panel of experts. In total, 12 experts from Australia, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Canada and the USA participated. By the end of the Delphi process, formal consensus was achieved for 100% (n = 61) of the terms and a glossary was then developed. Agreement between international experts has been reached on relevant terms and subsequent definitions regarding AS for patients with localized prostate cancer. This standard terminology could support multidisciplinary communication, reduce the extent of variations in clinical practice and optimize clinical decision making.Peer reviewe

PRECISE Version 2:Updated Recommendations for Reporting Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

Background and objective: The Prostate Cancer Radiological Estimation of Change in Sequential Evaluation (PRECISE) recommendations standardise the reporting of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. An international consensus group recently updated these recommendations and identified the areas of uncertainty. Methods: A panel of 38 experts used the formal RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method consensus methodology. Panellists scored 193 statements using a 1–9 agreement scale, where 9 means full agreement. A summary of agreement, uncertainty, or disagreement (derived from the group median score) and consensus (determined using the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry method) was calculated for each statement and presented for discussion before individual rescoring. Key findings and limitations: Participants agreed that MRI scans must meet a minimum image quality standard (median 9) or be given a score of ‘X’ for insufficient quality. The current scan should be compared with both baseline and previous scans (median 9), with the PRECISE score being the maximum from any lesion (median 8). PRECISE 3 (stable MRI) was subdivided into 3-V (visible) and 3-NonV (nonvisible) disease (median 9). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert ≥3 lesions should be measured on T2-weighted imaging, using other sequences to aid in the identification (median 8), and whenever possible, reported pictorially (diagrams, screenshots, or contours; median 9). There was no consensus on how to measure tumour size. More research is needed to determine a significant size increase (median 9). PRECISE 5 was clarified as progression to stage ≥T3a (median 9). Conclusions and clinical implications: The updated PRECISE recommendations reflect expert consensus opinion on minimal standards and reporting criteria for prostate MRI in AS.</p

Reasons for Discontinuing Active Surveillance : Assessment of 21 Centres in 12 Countries in the Movember GAP3 Consortium

Background: Careful assessment of the reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) is required for men with prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: Using Movember's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative (GAP3) database, we report on reasons for AS discontinuation. Design, setting, and participants: We compared data from 10 296 men on AS from 21 centres across 12 countries. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Cumulative incidence methods were used to estimate the cumulative incidence rates of AS discontinuation. Results and limitations: During 5-yr follow-up, 27.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4-28.6%) men showed signs of disease progression, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.0-13.6%) converted to active treatment without evidence of progression, 1.7% (95% CI: 1.5-2.0%) continued to watchful waiting, and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.4-2.1%) died from other causes. Of the 7049 men who remained on AS, 2339 had follow-up for >5 yr, 4561 had follow-up for Conclusions: Our descriptive analyses of current AS practices worldwide showed that 43.6% of men drop out of AS during 5-yr follow-up, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Improvements in selection tools for AS are thus needed to correctly allocate men with PCa to AS, which will also reduce discontinuation due to conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression. Patient summary: Our assessment of a worldwide database of men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) shows that 43.6% drop out of AS within 5 yr, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Better tools are needed to select and monitor men with PCa as part of AS. (C) 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

PTEN Loss but Not ERG Expression in Diagnostic Biopsies Is Associated with Increased Risk of Progression and Adverse Surgical Findings in Men with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance

Background Active surveillance (AS) is an option for men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). PTEN and ERG have been considered as potential biomarkers of PCa progression and survival. Objective To study the role of ERG and PTEN status in the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) trial diagnostic biopsies (DBxs) in predicting surveillance discontinuation and adverse surgical findings in subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP). Design, setting, and participants A total of 231 patients were recruited to the PRIAS between 2007 and 2013 in Helsinki. DBx tissue for immunohistochemistry (IHC) was available from 190 patients. Tissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed from 57 specimens of subsequent RPs. DBxs containing grade group (GG) 1 PCa and RP TMA sections were stained with ERG and PTEN antibodies, and scored as either negative or positive. Outcome measurements and statistical analyses Outcomes were followed up by biopsy GG upgrade (GG ≥ 2) and protocol-based treatment change, as well as adverse findings in RP (GG ≥ 3 or pathological stage ≥ 3). Clinical variables and biomarker status in DBx were correlated in Cox regression analysis and cumulative survival in Kaplan–Meier analysis, and finally, Gray’s competing risk analysis was performed and nonprotocol-based discontinuation was considered as a competing event. Results and limitations In both uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses, only the number of positive cores in the DBx, the number of rebiopsy sessions, and PTEN status at diagnosis were significantly associated with rebiopsy GG upgrade, treatment change, and adverse histopathology in RP. In Kaplan–Meier analysis, PTEN loss was associated with a shorter time to GG upgrade and treatment change. Patients with PTEN loss had a higher probability for protocol-based discontinuation but not for competing risk factors compared with patients with intact PTEN. Biopsy ERG status was concordant with RP TMA ERG status, while PTEN was not. Limitations include a retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data. Conclusions PTEN status at diagnosis is a potential biomarker for identifying patients with PCa on AS with a high risk for progression or adverse findings on subsequent RP. Patient summary A simple diagnostic biopsy-based analysis of PTEN status may help identify patients with high risk for prostate cancer progression. Keywords PTEN; ERG; Immunohistochemistry; Biopsy; Active surveillancePeer reviewe

Reasons for discontinuing active surveillance:Assessment of 21 centres in 12 countries in the Movember GAP3 Consortium

BACKGROUND: Careful assessment of the reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) is required for men with prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: Using Movember’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative (GAP3) database, we report on reasons for AS discontinuation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We compared data from 10 296 men on AS from 21 centres across 12 countries. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cumulative incidence methods were used to estimate the cumulative incidence rates of AS discontinuation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During 5-yr follow-up, 27.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4–28.6%) men showed signs of disease progression, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.0–13.6%) converted to active treatment without evidence of progression, 1.7% (95% CI: 1.5–2.0%) continued to watchful waiting, and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.4–2.1%) died from other causes. Of the 7049 men who remained on AS, 2339 had follow-up for >5 yr, 4561 had follow-up for <5 yr, and 149 were lost to follow-up. Cumulative incidence of progression was 27.5% (95% CI: 26.4–28.6%) at 5 yr and 38.2% (95% CI: 36.7–39.9%) at 10 yr. A limitation is that not all centres were included due to limited information on the reason for discontinuation and limited follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our descriptive analyses of current AS practices worldwide showed that 43.6% of men drop out of AS during 5-yr follow-up, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Improvements in selection tools for AS are thus needed to correctly allocate men with PCa to AS, which will also reduce discontinuation due to conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our assessment of a worldwide database of men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) shows that 43.6% drop out of AS within 5 yr, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Better tools are needed to select and monitor men with PCa as part of AS

The roles of proteases in prostate cancer

Since the proposition of the pro-invasive activity of proteolytic enzymes over 70 years ago, several roles for proteases in cancer progression have been established. About half of the 473 active human proteases are expressed in the prostate and many of the most well-characterized members of this enzyme family are regulated by androgens, hormones essential for development of prostate cancer. Most notably, several kallikrein-related peptidases, including KLK3 (prostate-specific antigen, PSA), the most well-known prostate cancer marker, and type II transmembrane serine proteases, such as TMPRSS2 and matriptase, have been extensively studied and found to promote prostate cancer progression. Recent findings also suggest a critical role for proteases in the development of advanced and aggressive castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Perhaps the most intriguing evidence for this role comes from studies showing that the protease-activated transmembrane proteins, Notch and CDCP1, are associated with the development of CRPC. Here, we review the roles of proteases in prostate cancer, with a special focus on their regulation by androgens.Peer reviewe