Does race impact functional outcomes in patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy?

Background: The role of race on functional outcomes after robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is still a matter of debate. We aimed to evaluate the clinical and pathologic characteristics of African American (AA) and Caucasian patients who underwent RPN and analyzed the association between race and functional outcomes. Methods: Data was obtained from a multi-institutional database of patients who underwent RPN in 6 institutions in the USA. We identified 999 patients with complete clinical data. Sixty-three patients (6.3%) were AA, and each patient was matched (1:3) to Caucasian patients by age at surgery, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and renal score. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of acute kidney injury (AKI). Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable semiparametric Cox regression analyses were performed to assess prevalence and predictors of significant eGFR reduction during follow-up. Results: Overall, 252 patients were included. AA were more likely to have hypertension (58.7% Conclusions: Although African American patients were more likely to have hypertension, renal function outcomes of robotic partial nephrectomies were not significantly different when stratified by race. However, future studies with larger cohorts are necessary to validate these findings

SelectMDx and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate for Men Undergoing Primary Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective Assessment in a Multi-Institutional Study

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing as the sole indication for prostate biopsy lacks specificity, resulting in overdiagnosis of indolent prostate cancer (PCa) and missing clinically significant PCa (csPCa). SelectMDx is a biomarker-based risk score to assess urinary HOXC6 and DLX1 mRNA expression combined with traditional clinical risk factors. The aim of this prospective multi-institutional study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx and its association with multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) when predicting PCa in prostate biopsies. Overall, 310 consecutive subjects were included. All patients underwent mpMRI and SelectMDx prior to prostate biopsy. SelectMDx and mpMRI showed sensitivity and specificity of 86.5% vs. 51.9%, and 73.8% vs. 88.3%, respectively, in predicting PCa at biopsy, and 87.1% vs. 61.3%, and 63.7% vs. 83.9%, respectively, in predicting csPCa at biopsy. SelectMDx was revealed to be a good predictor of PCa, while with regards to csPCa detection, it was demonstrated to be less effective, showing results similar to mpMRI. With analysis of strategies assessed to define the best diagnostic strategy to avoid unnecessary biopsy, SelectMDx appeared to be a reliable pathway after an initial negative mpMRI. Thus, biopsy could be proposed for all cases of mpMRI PI-RADS 4-5 score, and to those with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-3 score followed by a positive SelectMDx

How to read biparametric MRI in men with a clinical suspicious of prostate cancer: Pictorial review for beginners with public access to imaging, clinical and histopathological database

Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used in men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). Performing prostate MRI without the use of an intravenous contrast (IV) agent in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa can lead to reduced MRI scan time. Enabling a large array of different medical providers (from mid-level to specialized radiologists) to evaluate and potentially report prostate MRI in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa with a high accuracy could be one way to enable wide adoption of prostate MRI in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa. The aim of this pictorial review is to provide an insight into acquisition, quality control and reporting of prostate MRI performed without IV contrast agent in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa, aimed specifically at radiologists starting reporting prostate MRI, urologists, urology/radiology residents and mid-level medical providers without experience in reporting prostate MRI. Free public access (http://petiv.utu.fi/improd/and http://petiv.utu.fi/multiimprod/) to complete datasets of 161 and 338 men is provided. The imaging datasets are accompanied by clinical, laboratory and histopathological findings. Several topics are simplified in order to provide a solid base for the development of skills needed for an unsupervised review and potential reporting of prostate MRI in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa. The current review represents the first step towards enabling a large array of different medical providers to review and report accurately prostate MRI performed without IV contrast agent in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa

Diagnosis of prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging in men treated with 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors

Purpose The primary aim of this study was to evaluate if exposure to 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) modifies the effect of MRI for the diagnosis of clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) (ISUP Gleason grade >= 2).Methods This study is a multicenter cohort study including patients undergoing prostate biopsy and MRI at 24 institutions between 2013 and 2022. Multivariable analysis predicting csPCa with an interaction term between 5-ARIs and PIRADS score was performed. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative (NPV) and positive (PPV) predictive values of MRI were compared in treated and untreated patients.Results 705 patients (9%) were treated with 5-ARIs [median age 69 years, Interquartile range (IQR): 65, 73; median PSA 6.3 ng/ml, IQR 4.0, 9.0; median prostate volume 53 ml, IQR 40, 72] and 6913 were 5-ARIs naive (age 66 years, IQR 60, 71; PSA 6.5 ng/ml, IQR 4.8, 9.0; prostate volume 50 ml, IQR 37, 65). MRI showed PIRADS 1-2, 3, 4, and 5 lesions in 141 (20%), 158 (22%), 258 (37%), and 148 (21%) patients treated with 5-ARIs, and 878 (13%), 1764 (25%), 2948 (43%), and 1323 (19%) of untreated patients (p < 0.0001). No difference was found in csPCa detection rates, but diagnosis of high-grade PCa (ISUP GG >= 3) was higher in treated patients (23% vs 19%, p = 0.013). We did not find any evidence of interaction between PIRADS score and 5-ARIs exposure in predicting csPCa. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of PIRADS >= 3 were 94%, 29%, 46%, and 88% in treated patients and 96%, 18%, 43%, and 88% in untreated patients, respectively.Conclusions Exposure to 5-ARIs does not affect the association of PIRADS score with csPCa. Higher rates of high-grade PCa were detected in treated patients, but most were clearly visible on MRI as PIRADS 4 and 5 lesions.Trial registration The present study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT05078359

A 4K score/ MRI ‐based nomogram for predicting prostate cancer, clinically significant prostate cancer, and unfavorable prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: The detection of prostate cancer requires histological confirmation in biopsy core. Currently, number of unnecessary prostate biopsies are being performed in the United States. This is due to the absence of appropriate biopsy decision‐making protocol. AIM: To develop and validate a 4K score/multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)‐based nomogram to predict prostate cancer (PCa), clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and unfavorable prostate cancer (uPCa). METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective, single‐center study evaluating a cohort of 574 men with 4K score test >7% or suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE) or Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) scores 3, 4, or 5 on mpMRI that underwent systematic and/or mpMRI/ultrasound fusion–targeted prostate biopsy between 2016 and 2020. External cohort included 622 men. csPCa and uPCa were defined as Gleason score ≥3 + 4 and ≥4 + 3 on biopsy, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to build nomogram for predicting PCa, csPCa, and uPCa. Validation was performed by plotting the area under the curve (AUC) and comparing nomogram‐predicted probabilities with actual rates of PCa, csPCa, and uPCa probabilities in the external cohort. 4K score, a PI‐RADS ≥4, prostate volume and prior negative biopsy were significant predictors of PCa, csPCa, and uPCa. AUCs were 0.84, 0.88, and 0.86 for the prediction of PCa, csPCa, and uPCa, respectively. The predicted and actual rates of PCa, csPCa, and uPCa showed agreement across all percentage probability ranges in the validation cohort. Using the prediction model at threshold of 30, 30% of overall biopsies, 41% of benign biopsies, and 19% of diagnosed indolent PCa could be avoided, while missing 9% of csPCa. CONCLUSION: This novel nomogram would reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies and decrease detection of clinically insignificant PCa

Organized prostate cancer screening program: a proposal from the Italian Society of Urology (SIU)

: To contrast opportunistic PCa screening, the European Union Council suggested extending screening programs to PCa by recommending the implementation of a stepwise approach in the EU Countries to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of an organized program based on PSA testing in combination with additional MRI as a follow-up test. The objective of this expert-based document is to propose an organized PCa screening program according to the EU Council recommendations. The Italian Society of Urology (SIU) developed a team of experts with the aim to report 1) the most recent epidemiologic data about incidence, prevalence, and mortality of PCa; 2) the most important risk factors to identify categories of men with an increased risk to eventually develop the disease; 3) the most relevant studies presenting data on population-based screening; and 4) the current recommendations of the leading International Guidelines. According to previous evidence, the Panel proposed some indications to develop a new organized PCa screening program for asymptomatic men with a life-expectancy of at least fifteen years. The SIU Panel strongly supports the implementation of a pilot, organized PCa screening program inviting asymptomatic men in the age range of 50-55 years. Invited men who are already performing opportunistic screening will be randomized to continue opportunistic screening or to cross into the organized protocol. Men with PSA level ≤3 ng/mL and familiarity for PCa received a DRE as well as all those with PSA levels >3 ng/mL. All other men with PSA levels greater than 3 ng/mL proceed to secondary testing represented by mpMRI. Men with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) lesions 3 and PSAD 0.15 ng/mL/cc or higher as well as those with PI-RADS 4-5 lesions proceed to targeted plus systematic prostate biopsy. The primary outcome of the proposed pilot PCa screening program will be the detection rate of clinically significant PCa defined as a tumor with a ISUP Grade Group ≥2. Main secondary outcomes will be the detection rate of aggressive PCa (ISUP Grade Group ≥4); the detection rate of insignificant PCa (ISUP Grade Group 1); the number of unnecessary prostate biopsy avoided, the metastasis-free survival, and the overall survival. Men will be invited over a one-year period. Preliminary analyses will be planned 2 and 5 years after the baseline enrollment. According to the recent EU Council recommendations on cancer screening, pilot studies evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of PCa screening programs using PSA as the primary and mpMRI as the secondary screening test in selected cohorts of patients must be strongly promoted by scientific societies and supported by national governments

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with novel hormonal therapies for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an update from mature overall survival data

To get better insight into the management of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC), in this meta-analysis and review we aimed to present an updated evaluation of the efficacy and safety of novel hormonal therapies (nHT) for M0 CRPC according to final analyses with mature overall survival (OS) and safety data

How to read biparametric MRI in men with a clinical suspicious of prostate cancer: Pictorial review for beginners with public access to imaging, clinical and histopathological database

: Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used in men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). Performing prostate MRI without the use of an intravenous contrast (IV) agent in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa can lead to reduced MRI scan time. Enabling a large array of different medical providers (from mid-level to specialized radiologists) to evaluate and potentially report prostate MRI in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa with a high accuracy could be one way to enable wide adoption of prostate MRI in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa. The aim of this pictorial review is to provide an insight into acquisition, quality control and reporting of prostate MRI performed without IV contrast agent in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa, aimed specifically at radiologists starting reporting prostate MRI, urologists, urology/radiology residents and mid-level medical providers without experience in reporting prostate MRI. Free public access (http://petiv.utu.fi/improd/and http://petiv.utu.fi/multiimprod/) to complete datasets of 161 and 338 men is provided. The imaging datasets are accompanied by clinical, laboratory and histopathological findings. Several topics are simplified in order to provide a solid base for the development of skills needed for an unsupervised review and potential reporting of prostate MRI in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa. The current review represents the first step towards enabling a large array of different medical providers to review and report accurately prostate MRI performed without IV contrast agent in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa

Defining Prostate Cancer at Favorable Intermediate Risk: the Potential Utility Of Magnetic Resonance Imaging And Genomic Tests

To determine whether prostate multi parametric MRI (mpMRI) and genomic biomarkers might help further defining patients with favorable intermediate risk patients (FIR) prostate cancer which could safely considered suitable for active surveillance (AS)