Predictors of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PIRADS Categories 3–5 Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate

Prostate biopsy is recommended in cases of positive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), defined as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) category ≥ 3. However, most men with positive MRIs will not be diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). Our goal was to evaluate pre-biopsy characteristics that influence the probability of a csPC diagnosis in these patients. We retrospectively analyzed 740 consecutive men with a positive MRI and no prior PC diagnosis who underwent MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsies of the prostate in three centers. csPC detection rates (CDRs) for each PIRADS category were calculated. Patient, disease, and lesion characteristics were studied for interdependencies with the csPC diagnosis. The CDR in patients with PIRADS categories 3, 4, and 5 was 10.5%, 30.7%, and 54.6%, respectively. On both uni- and multivariable regression models, older age, being biopsy-naïve, prostate specific antigen ≥ 10 ng/mL, smaller prostate volume, PIRADS > 3, a larger maximum lesion size, a lesion in the peripheral zone, and a positive digital rectal examination were associated with csPC. In this large, multicenter study, we provide new data regarding CDRs in particular PIRADS categories. In addition, we present several strong predictors that further alter the risk of csPC in MRI-positive patients. Our results could help in refining individual risk assessment, especially in PIRADS 3 patients, in whom the risk of csPC is substantially low

High-Intensity Focused-Ultrasound Focal Therapy Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparison of Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients

To compare oncological and functional outcomes of high-intensity focused-ultrasound (HIFU) focal therapy (FT) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in patients treated for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa), we retrospectively analyzed data of consecutive patients comprising 30 men, who underwent HIFU-FT, and 96 men who underwent LRP, in an academic center. Oncological outcomes were assessed based on the follow-up prostate-specific antigen values. We used the International Index of Erectile Function short form score to assess erectile function (EF). Urinary continence status was defined based on the number of pads used per day. Median follow-up was 12.5 and 19.1 months in the LRP and HIFU-FT groups, respectively. The effects were computed after propensity score matching and expressed as average treatment effect (ATE). Compared to LRP, HIFU-FT was associated with increased risk of treatment failure (ATE 0.103–0.164, depending on definition, p < 0.01) and lower risk of urinary incontinence (ATE −0.808 at 12 months, p < 0.01). Risk of erectile dysfunction was higher in the LRP group (ATE 5.092, p < 0.01). Our results demonstrate that HIFU-FT may be a reasonable treatment option in selected PCa patients, willing to preserve their EF and urinary continence yet accepting a higher risk of treatment failure

The Impact of the Ongoing COVID-19 Epidemic on the Increasing Risk of Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

We aimed to assess whether the ongoing course of the COVID-19 epidemic has been associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology (AP) findings in prostate cancer (PC) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We performed a retrospective data analysis which included 408 consecutive, non-metastatic, previously untreated PC patients who underwent RP in our institution between March 2020 and September 2021. Patients were divided into two equally numbered groups in regard to the median surgery date (Early Epidemic [EE] and Late Epidemic [LE]) and compared. Adverse pathology was defined as either grade group (GG) ≥ 4, pT ≥ 3a or pN+ at RP. Patients in the LE group demonstrated significantly higher rates of AP than in the EE group (61 vs. 43% overall and 50 vs. 27% in preoperative non-high-risk subgroup, both p < 0.001), mainly due to higher rates of upgrading. On multivariable analysis, consecutive epidemic week (odds ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.00–1.03, p = 0.009) as well as biopsy GG ≥ 2 and a larger prostate volume (mL) were associated with AP in non-high-risk patients. The study serves as a warning call for increased awareness of risk underassessment in contemporarily treated PC patients

Predictors of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PIRADS Categories 3–5 Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate

Prostate biopsy is recommended in cases of positive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), defined as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) category ≥ 3. However, most men with positive MRIs will not be diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). Our goal was to evaluate pre-biopsy characteristics that influence the probability of a csPC diagnosis in these patients. We retrospectively analyzed 740 consecutive men with a positive MRI and no prior PC diagnosis who underwent MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsies of the prostate in three centers. csPC detection rates (CDRs) for each PIRADS category were calculated. Patient, disease, and lesion characteristics were studied for interdependencies with the csPC diagnosis. The CDR in patients with PIRADS categories 3, 4, and 5 was 10.5%, 30.7%, and 54.6%, respectively. On both uni- and multivariable regression models, older age, being biopsy-naïve, prostate specific antigen ≥ 10 ng/mL, smaller prostate volume, PIRADS > 3, a larger maximum lesion size, a lesion in the peripheral zone, and a positive digital rectal examination were associated with csPC. In this large, multicenter study, we provide new data regarding CDRs in particular PIRADS categories. In addition, we present several strong predictors that further alter the risk of csPC in MRI-positive patients. Our results could help in refining individual risk assessment, especially in PIRADS 3 patients, in whom the risk of csPC is substantially low

The Impact of the Ongoing COVID-19 Epidemic on the Increasing Risk of Adverse Pathology in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

We aimed to assess whether the ongoing course of the COVID-19 epidemic has been associated with an increased risk of adverse pathology (AP) findings in prostate cancer (PC) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). We performed a retrospective data analysis which included 408 consecutive, non-metastatic, previously untreated PC patients who underwent RP in our institution between March 2020 and September 2021. Patients were divided into two equally numbered groups in regard to the median surgery date (Early Epidemic [EE] and Late Epidemic [LE]) and compared. Adverse pathology was defined as either grade group (GG) ≥ 4, pT ≥ 3a or pN+ at RP. Patients in the LE group demonstrated significantly higher rates of AP than in the EE group (61 vs. 43% overall and 50 vs. 27% in preoperative non-high-risk subgroup, both p p = 0.009) as well as biopsy GG ≥ 2 and a larger prostate volume (mL) were associated with AP in non-high-risk patients. The study serves as a warning call for increased awareness of risk underassessment in contemporarily treated PC patients

Quantification of Gleason Pattern 4 at MRI-Guided Biopsy to Predict Adverse Pathology at Radical Prostatectomy in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients

Background: Data on Gleason pattern 4 (GP4) amount in biopsy tissue is important for prostate cancer (PC) risk assessment. We aim to investigate which GP4 quantification method predicts adverse pathology (AP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) the best in men diagnosed with intermediate-risk (IR) PC at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy. Methods: We retrospectively included 123 patients diagnosed with IR PC (prostate-specific antigen <20 ng/mL, grade group (GG) 2 or 3, no iT3 on MRI) at MRI-guided biopsy, who underwent RP. Twelve GP4 amount-related parameters were developed, based on GP4 quantification method (absolute, relative to core, or cancer length) and site (overall, targeted, systematic biopsy, or worst specimen). Additionally, we calculated PV×GP4 (prostate volume × GP4 relative to core length in overall biopsy), aiming to represent the total GP4 volume in the prostate. The associations of GP4 with AP (GG ≥ 4, ≥pT3a, or pN1) were investigated. Results: AP was reported in 39 (31.7%) of patients. GP4 relative to cancer length was not associated with AP. Of the 12 parameters, the highest ROC AUC value was seen for GP4 relative to core length in overall biopsy (0.65). an even higher AUC value was noted for PV × GP4 (0.67), with a negative predictive value of 82.8% at the optimal threshold. Conclusions: The lack of an association of GP4 relative to cancer length with AP, contrasted with the better performance of other parameters, indicates directions for future research on PC risk stratification to accurately identify patients who may not require immediate treatment. Incorporating formulas aimed at GP4 volume assessment may lead to obtaining models with the best discrimination ability