Significant prostate cancer risk after MRI-guided biopsy showing benign findings: Results from a cohort of 381 men.

BACKGROUND: MRI-guided biopsy (MGB) contributes to the diagnosis of clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa). However, there are no clear recommendations for the management of men after a negative MGB. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of csPCa after a first negative MGB. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2020, we selected men with a PI-RADS score ≥ 3 on MRI and a negative MGB (showing benign findings) performed for suspected prostate cancer. MGB (targeted and systematic biopsies) was performed using fully integrated mobile fusion imaging (KOELIS). The primary endpoint was the rate of csPCa (defined as an ISUP grade ≥ 2) diagnosed after a first negative MGB. RESULTS: A total of 381 men with a negative MGB and a median age of 65 (IQR: 59-69, range: 46-85) years were included. During the median follow-up of 31 months, 124 men (32.5%) had a new MRI, and 76 (19.9%) were referred for a new MGB, which revealed csPCa in 16 (4.2%) of them. We found no statistical difference in the characteristics of men diagnosed with csPCa compared with men with no csPCa after the second MGB. CONCLUSION: We observed a risk of significant prostate cancer in 4% of men two years after a negative MRI-guided biopsy. Performing a repeat MRI could improve the selection of men who will benefit from a repeat MRI-guided biopsy, but a clear protocol is needed to follow these patients.

What causes H5N1 avian influenza? Lay perceptions of H5N1 aetiology in South East and East Asia.

BACKGROUND: Health education to reduce population poultry exposures has limited effect. Lay beliefs about H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) causes could provide insights helpful for improving public health interventions. METHODS: Qualitative interviews of poultry farmers, retailers, market stall holders and consumers in Hong Kong (n = 20), Guangzhou (n = 25), Vietnam (n = 38) and Thailand (n = 40) were conducted using purposive sampling and analysed using ethnographic principles. RESULTS: Each location produced three comparable themes: 'viruses': HPAI exemplified a periodic, natural, disease process therefore, deserving little concern. For some, science had 'discovered' something long known to farmers and lived with for generations. Others believe the virus to be new. Viral ecology was reasonably well understood among farmers, but less so by retailers and consumers; 'husbandry practices' included poor hygiene, overcrowding and industrial farming, modern commercial feed and veterinary drugs; 'vulnerability factors' included uncontrollable 'external' explanations involving the weather, seasonal changes, bird migrations and pollution. CONCLUSIONS: Lay explanations were generally ecologically consistent. Nonetheless, beliefs that HPAI is a normal, recurrent process, external factors and roles of industrialized poultry rearing countered health worker claims of H5N1 seriousness for smallholders. These causal beliefs incorporate contemporary models of H5N1 ecology, but in a manner that contradicts public health efforts at control.