An international survey of contemporary practices towards fertility assessment and preservation in patients undergoing radical inguinal orchidectomy for testicular cancer.

Objective: The study aims to assess current international clinician attitudes, practices and barriers towards fertility assessment and preservation in patients undergoing radical inguinal orchidectomy (RIO) for testicular cancer. Materials and methods: An international online survey of urologists and urologists in training who perform RIO for testicular cancer was developed by the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Sections of Andrology and Oncology and the British Urology Researchers in Surgical Training (BURST). The recruitment process used social media and the emailing lists of national urological societies. Responses were collected between 10/02/2021 and 31/05/2021 and stored using password-protected Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database software. The primary outcome was the proportion of urologists who routinely offer semen cryopreservation prior to RIO. The study was reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys platform. Results: A total of 393 respondents took part in the online survey; of these, the majority were from the United Kingdom (65.9%), with the remaining international respondents (34.1%) from six different continents, which included 45 different countries. Of the respondents, 57.1% reported that they would routinely offer semen cryopreservation to all patients undergoing RIO for testicular cancer. In addition, 36.0% of urologists routinely performed pre-operative semen analysis, and 22.1% routinely performed pre-operative testicular serum hormone profile. Of the respondents, 14.4% performed expedited RIO within 48 h; 31.2% of respondents reported that they considered no delay to RIO to allow for semen cryopreservation to be acceptable. Conclusions: A significant proportion of international urologists do not offer pre-operative fertility assessment and preservation in men undergoing RIO for testicular cancer. Surgery is performed in an expedited fashion within 1 week in the majority of patients. Urologists perceive there to be a lack of access and availability to fertility services, and that delay to RIO to allow for fertility preservation is often not acceptable.

The Role of Multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer: An Analysis from the FORECAST Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for detecting intraprostatic cancer recurrence and planning for salvage focal ablation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST; NCT01883128) was a prospective cohort diagnostic study that recruited 181 patients with suspected radiorecurrence at six UK centres (2014 to 2018); 144 were included here. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent MRI with 5 mm transperineal template mapping biopsies; 84 had additional MRI-targeted biopsies. MRI scans with Likert scores of 3 to 5 were deemed suspicious. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: First, the diagnostic accuracy of MRI was calculated. Second, the pathological characteristics of MRI-detected and MRI-undetected tumours were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-square test for trend. Third, four biopsy strategies involving an MRI-targeted biopsy alone and with systematic biopsies of one to two other quadrants were studied. Fisher's exact test was used to compare MRI-targeted biopsy alone with the best other strategy for the number of patients with missed cancer and the number of patients with cancer harbouring additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. Analyses focused primarily on detecting cancer of any grade or length. Last, eligibility for focal therapy was evaluated for men with localised (≤T3bN0M0) radiorecurrent disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 144 patients, 111 (77%) had cancer detected on biopsy. MRI sensitivity and specificity at the patient level were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35), respectively. At the prostate quadrant level, 258/576 (45%) quadrants had cancer detected on biopsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.73) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), respectively. At the quadrant level, compared with MRI-undetected tumours, MRI-detected tumours had longer maximum cancer core length (median difference 3 mm [7 vs 4 mm]; 95% CI 1 to 4 mm, p < 0.001) and a higher grade group (p = 0.002). Of the 84 men who also underwent an MRI-targeted biopsy, 73 (87%) had recurrent cancer diagnosed. Performing an MRI-targeted biopsy alone missed cancer in 5/73 patients (7%; 95% CI 3 to 15%); with additional systematic sampling of the other ipsilateral and contralateral posterior quadrants (strategy 4), 2/73 patients (3%; 95% CI 0 to 10%) would have had cancer missed (difference 4%; 95% CI -3 to 11%, p = 0.4). If an MRI-targeted biopsy alone was performed, 43/73 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) patients with cancer would have harboured undetected additional tumours in unsampled quadrants. This reduced but only to 7/73 patients (10%; 95% CI 4 to 19%) with strategy 4 (difference 49%; 95% CI 36 to 62%, p < 0.0001). Of 73 patients, 43 (59%; 95% CI 47 to 69%) had localised radiorecurrent cancer suitable for a form of focal ablation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy, MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy, with or without perilesional sampling, will diagnose cancer in the majority where present. MRI-undetected cancers, defined as Likert scores of 1 to 2, were found to be smaller and of lower grade. However, if salvage focal ablation is planned, an MRI-targeted biopsy alone is insufficient for prostate mapping; approximately three of five patients with recurrent cancer found on an MRI-targeted biopsy alone harboured further tumours in unsampled quadrants. Systematic sampling of the whole gland should be considered in addition to an MRI-targeted biopsy to capture both MRI-detected and MRI-undetected disease. PATIENT SUMMARY: After radiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is accurate for detecting recurrent prostate cancer, with missed cancer being smaller and of lower grade. Targeting a biopsy to suspicious areas on MRI results in a diagnosis of cancer in most patients. However, for every five men who have recurrent cancer, this targeted approach would miss cancers elsewhere in the prostate in three of these men. If further focal treatment of the prostate is planned, random biopsies covering the whole prostate in addition to targeted biopsies should be considered so that tumours are not missed.

External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION: In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsies Compared to Transperineal Mapping Biopsies Before Focal Ablation in Localised and Metastatic Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy occurs in one in five patients. The efficacy of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in recurrent cancer has not been established. Furthermore, high-quality data on new minimally invasive salvage focal ablative treatments are needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of prostate MRI in detection of prostate cancer recurring after radiotherapy and the role of salvage focal ablation in treating recurrent disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The FORECAST trial was both a paired-cohort diagnostic study evaluating prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsies in the detection of recurrent cancer and a cohort study evaluating focal ablation at six UK centres. A total of 181 patients were recruited, with 155 included in the MRI analysis and 93 in the focal ablation analysis. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography and a bone scan, followed by prostate mpMRI and MRI-targeted and transperineal template-mapping (TTPM) biopsies. MRI was reported blind to other tests. Those eligible underwent subsequent focal ablation. An amendment in December 2014 permitted focal ablation in patients with metastases. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were the sensitivity of MRI and MRI-targeted biopsies for cancer detection, and urinary incontinence after focal ablation. A key secondary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Staging whole-body imaging revealed localised cancer in 128 patients (71%), with involvement of pelvic nodes only in 13 (7%) and metastases in 38 (21%). The sensitivity of MRI-targeted biopsy was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83-97%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 75% (95% CI 45-92%), 94% (95% CI 86-98%), and 65% (95% CI 38-86%), respectively. Four cancer (6%) were missed by TTPM biopsy and six (8%) were missed by MRI-targeted biopsy. The overall MRI sensitivity for detection of any cancer was 94% (95% CI 88-98%). The specificity and positive and negative predictive values were 18% (95% CI 7-35%), 80% (95% CI 73-87%), and 46% (95% CI 19-75%), respectively. Among 93 patients undergoing focal ablation, urinary incontinence occurred in 15 (16%) and five (5%) had a grade ≥3 adverse event, with no rectal injuries. Median follow-up was 27 mo (interquartile range 18-36); overall PFS was 66% (interquartile range 54-75%) at 24 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies to optimise cancer detection. Focal ablation for areas of intraprostatic recurrence preserves continence in the majority, with good early cancer control. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the prostate and MRI-targeted biopsies in outcomes after cancer-targeted high-intensity ultrasound or cryotherapy in patients with recurrent cancer after radiotherapy. Our findings show that these patients should undergo prostate MRI with both systematic and targeted biopsies and then ablative treatment focused on areas of recurrent cancer to preserve their quality of life. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01883128.

Which Prostate Cancers are Undetected by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men with Previous Prostate Biopsy? An Analysis from the PICTURE Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has improved risk stratification for suspected prostate cancer in patients following prior biopsy. However, not all significant cancers are detected by mpMRI. The PICTURE study provides the ideal opportunity to investigate cancer undetected by mpMRI owing to the use of 5 mm transperineal template mapping (TTPM) biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To summarise attributes of cancers systematically undetected by mpMRI in patients with prior biopsy. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: PICTURE was a paired-cohort confirmatory study in which men requiring repeat biopsy underwent mpMRI followed by TTPM biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Attributes were compared between cancers detected and undetected by mpMRI at the patient level. Four predefined histopathological thresholds were used as the target condition for TTPM biopsy. Application of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was explored. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: When nonsuspicious mpMRI was defined as Likert score 1-2, 2.9% of patients (3/103; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-8.3%) with definition 1 disease (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3 of any length or maximum cancer core length [MCCL] ≥ 6 mm of any grade) had their cancer not detected by mpMRI. This proportion was 6.5% (11/168; 95% CI 3.3-11%) for definition 2 disease (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 of any length or MCCL ≥ 4 mm of any grade), 4.8% (7/146; 95% CI 2.0-9.6%) for any amount of Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 cancer, and 9.3% (20/215; 95% CI 5.8-14%) for any cancer. Definition 1 cancers undetected by mpMRI had lower overall Gleason score (p = 0.02) and maximum Gleason score (p = 0.01) compared to cancers detected by mpMRI. Prostate cancers undetected by mpMRI had shorter MCCL than cancers detected by mpMRI for every cancer threshold: definition 1, 6 versus 8 mm (p = 0.02); definition 2, 5 versus 6 mm (p = 0.04); any Gleason ≥ 3 + 4, 5 versus 6 mm (p = 0.03); and any cancer, 3 versus 5 mm (p = 0.0009). A theoretical PSAD threshold of 0.15 ng/ml/ml reduced the proportion of patients with undetected disease on nonsuspicious mpMRI to 0% (0/105; 95% CI 0-3.5%) for definition 1, 0.58% (1/171; 95% CI 0.01-3.2%) for definition 2, and 0% (0/146) for any Gleason ≥ 3 + 4. CONCLUSIONS: Few significant cancers are undetected by mpMRI in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsy. Undetected tumours are of lower overall and maximum Gleason grade and shorter cancer length compared to cancers detected by mpMRI. PATIENT SUMMARY: In patients with a previous prostate biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) overlooks few prostate cancers, and these tend to be smaller and less aggressive than cancer that is detected.

Added value of diffusion-weighted images and dynamic contrast enhancement in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the PICTURE trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the additional diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging (DCE) in men requiring a repeat biopsy within the PICTURE study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PICTURE was a paired-cohort confirmatory study in which 249 men who required further risk stratification after a previous non-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy underwent a 3-Tesla (3T) multiparametic (mp)MRI consisting of T2-weighted imaging (T2W), DWI and DCE, followed by transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. Each mpMRI was reported using a LIKERT score in a sequential blinded manner to generate scores for T2W, T2W+DWI and T2W+DWI+DCE. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of each combination. The threshold for a positive mpMRI was set at a LIKERT score ≥3. Clinically significant prostate cancer was analysed across a range of definitions including UCL/Ahmed definition 1 (primary definition), UCL/Ahmed definition 2, any Gleason ≥3 + 4 and any Gleason ≥4 + 3. RESULTS: Of 249 men, sequential MRI reporting was available for 246. There was a higher rate of equivocal lesions (44.6%) using T2W alone compared to the addition of DWI (23.9%) and DCE (19.8%). Using the primary definition of clinically significant disease, there was no significant difference in the overall accuracy between T2W, with an AUROC of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.80), T2W+DWI at 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.82), and T2W+DWI+DCE, with an AUROC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.82; P = 0.55). The AUROC values remained comparable using other definitions of clinically significant disease including UCL/Ahmed definition 2 (P = 0.79), Gleason ≥3 + 4 (P = 0.53) and Gleason ≥4 + 3 (P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Using 3T MRI, a high level of diagnostic accuracy can be achieved using T2W as a single parameter in men with a prior biopsy; however, such a strategy can lead to a higher rate of equivocal lesions.

Prostate Imaging Compared to Transperineal Ultrasound-guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer Risk Evaluation (PICTURE): a prospective cohort validating study assessing Prostate HistoScanning.

BACKGROUND: Men with negative prostate biopsies or those diagnosed with low-risk or low-volume intermediate-risk prostate cancers often require a second prostate biopsy prior to a treatment decision. Prostate HistoScanning (PHS) is an ultrasound imaging test that might inform prostate biopsy in such men. METHODS: PICTURE was a prospective, paired-cohort validating trial to assess the diagnostic accuracy of imaging in men requiring a further biopsy (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01492270) (11 January 2012-29 January 2014). We enrolled 330 men who had undergone a prior TRUS biopsy but where diagnostic uncertainty remained. All eligible men underwent PHS and transperineal template prostate mapping (TTPM) biopsy (reference standard). Men were blinded to the imaging results until after undergoing TTPM biopsies. We primarily assessed the ability of PHS to rule out clinically significant prostate (negative predictive value [NPV] and sensitivity) for a target histological condition of Gleason ≥4+3 and/or a cancer core length (MCCL) ≥6 mm. We also assessed the role of visually estimated PHS-targeted biopsies. RESULTS: Of the 330 men enrolled, 249 underwent both PHS and TTPM biopsy. Mean (SD) age was 62 (7) years, median (IQR) PSA 6.8 (4.98-9.50) ng/ml, median (IQR) number of previous biopsies 1 (1-2) and mean (SD) gland size 37 (15.5) ml. One hundred and forty six (59%) had no clinically significant cancer. PHS classified 174 (70%) as suspicious. Sensitivity was 70.3% (95% CI 59.8-79.5) and NPV 41.3% (95% CI 27.0-56.8). Specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 14.7% (95% CI 9.1-22.0) and 36.8% (95% CI 29.6-44.4), respectively. In all, 213/220 had PHS suspicious areas targeted with targeting sensitivity 13.6% (95% CI 7.3-22.6), specificity 97.6% (95% CI 93.1-99.5), NPV 61.6% (95% CI 54.5-68.4) and PPV 80.0% (95% CI 51.9-95.7). CONCLUSIONS: PHS is not a useful test in men seeking risk stratification following initial prostate biopsy.

Immunohistochemical biomarker validation in highly selective needle biopsy microarrays derived from mpMRI-characterized prostates.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosing prostate cancer routinely involves tissue biopsy and increasingly image guided biopsy using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Excess tissue after diagnosis can be used for research to improve the diagnostic pathway and the vertical assembly of prostate needle biopsy cores into tissue microarrays (TMAs) allows the parallel immunohistochemical (IHC) validation of cancer biomarkers in routine diagnostic specimens. However, tissue within a biopsy core is often heterogeneous and cancer is not uniformly present, resulting in needle biopsy TMAs that suffer from highly variable cancer detection rates that complicate parallel biomarker validation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prostate cores with the highest tumor burden (in terms of Gleason score and/or maximum cancer core length) were obtained from 249 patients in the PICTURE trial who underwent transperineal template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy at 5 mm intervals preceded by mpMRI. From each core, 2 mm segments containing tumor or benign tissue (as assessed on H&E pathology) were selected, excised and embedded vertically into a new TMA block. TMA sections were then IHC-stained for the routinely used prostate cancer biomarkers PSA, PSMA, AMACR, p63, and MSMB and assessed using the h-score method. H-scores in patient matched malignant and benign tissue were correlated with the Gleason grade of the original core and the MRI Likert score for the sampled prostate area. RESULTS: A total of 2240 TMA cores were stained and IHC h-scores were assigned to 1790. There was a statistically significant difference in h-scores between patient matched malignant and adjacent benign tissue that is independent of Likert score. There was no association between the h-scores and Gleason grade or Likert score within each of the benign or malignant groups. CONCLUSION: The construction of highly selective TMAs from prostate needle biopsy cores is possible. IHC data obtained through this method are highly reliable and can be correlated with imaging. IHC expression patterns for PSA, PSMA, AMACR, p63, and MSMB are distinct in malignant and adjacent benign tissue but did not correlate with mpMRI Likert score.

Accuracy of Transperineal Targeted Prostate Biopsies, Visual Estimation and Image Fusion in Men Needing Repeat Biopsy in the PICTURE Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies and compared visual estimation to image fusion targeting in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective, ethics committee approved PICTURE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01492270) enrolled 249 consecutive patients from January 11, 2012 to January 29, 2014. Men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and were blinded to the results. All underwent transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. In 200 men with a lesion this was preceded by visual estimation and image fusion targeted biopsies. As the primary study end point clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason 4 + 3 or greater and/or any grade of cancer with a length of 6 mm or greater. Other definitions of clinically significant prostate cancer were also evaluated. RESULTS: Mean ± SD patient age was 62.6 ± 7 years, median prostate specific antigen was 7.17 ng/ml (IQR 5.25-10.09), mean primary lesion size was 0.37 ± 1.52 cc with a mean of 4.3 ± 2.3 targeted cores per lesion on visual estimation and image fusion combined, and a mean of 48.7 ± 12.3 transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy cores. Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies detected 97 clinically significant prostate cancers (48.5%) and 85 insignificant cancers (42.5%). Overall multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies detected 81 clinically significant prostate cancers (40.5%) and 63 insignificant cancers (31.5%). In the 18 cases (9%) of clinically significant prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies were benign or clinically insignificant on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 34 cases (17%) on transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy but not on magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies and approximately half was present in nontargeted areas. Clinically significant prostate cancer was found on visual estimation and image fusion in 53 (31.3%) and 48 (28.4%) of the 169 patients (McNemar test p = 0.5322). Visual estimation missed 23 clinically significant prostate cancers (13.6%) detected by image fusion. Image fusion missed 18 clinically significant prostate cancers (10.8%) detected by visual estimation. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies are accurate for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer and reducing the over diagnosis of insignificant cancers. To maximize detection visual estimation as well as image fusion targeted biopsies are required.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping Biopsies in the PICTURE Study.

PURPOSE: Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy is an increasingly used method of procuring tissue from men with suspected prostate cancer. We report patient related outcome measures and adverse events in men in the PICTURE trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01492270) who underwent this diagnostic test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 249 men underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy as a validation study. Functional outcomes before and after transperineal template prostate mapping were prospectively collected and recorded with questionnaires, including the I-PSS (International Prostate Symptom Score), the I-PSS-QoL (Quality of Life), the IIEF-15 (International Index of Erectile Function-15) and the EPIC (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) urinary function. RESULTS: Mean age was 62 years, median prostate specific antigen was 6.8 ng/ml and median gland size was 37 ml. At transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy a median of 49 cores (IQR 40-55) were taken. Mean time to complete the post-procedure patient related outcome measure questionnaires was 46 days. Adverse events included post-procedure acute urinary retention in 24% of patients, rectal pain in 26% and perineal pain in 41%. Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy resulted in a statistically significant increase in scores on the I-PSS from 10.9 to 11.8 (p = 0.024) and the I-PSS-QoL from 1.57 to 1.76 (p = 0.03). The IIEF-15 erectile function score decreased by 23.2% from 47.7 to 38.7 (p <0.001). Significant deterioration was noted in all 5 of IIEF-15 functional domains, including erectile and orgasmic function, sexual desire, and intercourse and overall satisfaction (p <0.001). EPIC urinary scores showed no overall change from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy causes a high urinary retention rate and a detrimental impact on genitourinary functional outcomes, including deterioration in urinary flow and sexual function. Our findings can be used to ensure adequate counseling about transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies. The results point to a need for strategies such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies to minimize the harms of transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy.

Development and internal validation of prediction models for biochemical failure and composite failure after focal salvage high intensity focused ultrasound for local radiorecurrent prostate cancer: Presentation of risk scores for individual patient prognoses.

PURPOSE: Patient selection for focal salvage remains difficult. Therefore, we developed and internally validated prediction models for biochemical failure (BF) and a composite endpoint (CE) following focal salvage high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for radiorecurrent prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective HIFU registry identified 150 cases (November 2006-August 2015). Recurrence was assessed with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with template prostate mapping biopsies, targeted biopsies, or systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies. Metastatic disease was ruled out with a positron emission tomography-computed tomography and a bone scan. Focal salvage HIFU consisted of quadrant-ablation, hemi-ablation, or index-lesion ablation. Cox-regression was used for BF (Phoenix-definition) and CE (BF/MRI+/biopsies+/local or systemic treatment/metastases+/prostate cancer specific mortality+). Internal validation was performed using bootstrap resampling (500 datasets) after which C-statistic and hazard ratios were adjusted. Models were calibrated and risk scores created. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 35 months (interquartile range: 22-52). Median biochemical disease-free survival (DFS) was 33 months (95% CI: 23-45). Median CE-free survival was 24 months (95% CI: 21-35). After multivariable analysis, DFS interval after primary radiotherapy, presalvage prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA-doubling time, prostatic volume, and T-stage (both MRI based) predicted BF. For the CE, PSA-doubling time was not predictive but additionally, primary Gleason score was. The adjusted C-statistics were 0.68 and 0.64 for BF and CE, respectively. Calibration was accurate until 48 months. The risk scores showed 3 groups, with biochemical DFS of 60%, 35%, and 7% and CE-free survival of 40%, 24%, and 0% at 4 years. CONCLUSION: Our model, once externally validated, could allow for better selection of patients for focal salvage HIFU.

Focal salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound in radiorecurrent prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess short- to medium-term cancer control rates and side effects of focal salvage high- intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective registry analysis identified 150 men who underwent focal salvage HIFU (FS-HIFU) (Sonablate 500) between November 2006 and August 2015. Metastatic disease was excluded by nodal assessment on the pelvic MRI, a radioisotope bone scan and positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging (choline-18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET or choline PET-CT). In our current clinical practice, metastatic disease must be excluded by both choline PET and bone scan. Localization of cancer was carried out using multiparametric MRI of the prostate (T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging) with systematic or template prostate mapping biopsies. The primary outcome was a composite failure incorporating biochemical failure (BCF) and/or positive localized or distant imaging results and/or positive biopsy and/or systemic therapy and/or metastases/prostate cancer-specific death. The secondary outcome was BCF using the Phoenix-ASTRO definition (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] nadir + 2 ng/mL). We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression to quantify the effect of the determinants on the endpoints. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation [sd]) patient age at focal salvage HIFU was 69.8 (6.1) years and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) PSA pre-focal salvage HIFU was 5.5 (3.6-7.9) ng/mL. The median (IQR) follow-up was 35 (22-52) months. Patients were classified as having low- 2.7% (4/150), intermediate- 39.3% (59/150) and high-risk disease 41.3% (62/150) according to D'Amico classification, prior to focal salvage HIFU. Composite failure occurred in 61% of patients (91/150) and BCF occurred in 51.3% (77/150). The Kaplan-Meier composite endpoint-free survival (CEFS) rate at 3 years was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31-50) for the entire group. Kaplan-Meier estimates of CEFS were 100%, 49% and 24% at 3 years in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups pre-salvage HIFU, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) rate at 3 years was 48% (95% CI 39-59) for the entire group. Kaplan-Meier estimates of BDFS were 100%, 61% and 32% at 3 years in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups pre-salvage HIFU, respectively. Complications included urinary tract infection (11.3%; 17/150), bladder neck stricture (8%; 12/150), recto-urethral fistula after one HIFU procedure (2%; 3/150) and osteitis pubis (0.7%; 1/150). CONCLUSION: Focal salvage HIFU conferred a relatively low complication and side effect rate. CEFS and biochemical control in the short to medium term were reasonable, especially in this relatively high-risk cohort, but still low compared with current whole-gland salvage therapies. Focal salvage therapy may offer disease control in men at high risk whilst minimizing additional treatment morbidities.

The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Transrectal prostate biopsy has limited diagnostic accuracy. Prostate Imaging Compared to Transperineal Ultrasound-guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer Risk Evaluation (PICTURE) was a paired-cohort confirmatory study designed to assess diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in men requiring a repeat biopsy. METHODS: All underwent 3 T mpMRI and transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies (TTPM biopsies). Multiparametric MRI was reported using Likert scores and radiologists were blinded to initial biopsies. Men were blinded to mpMRI results. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason ⩾4+3 and/or cancer core length ⩾6 mm. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-nine had both tests with mean (s.d.) age was 62 (7) years, median (IQR) PSA 6.8 ng ml (4.98-9.50), median (IQR) number of previous biopsies 1 (1-2) and mean (s.d.) gland size 37 ml (15.5). On TTPM biopsies, 103 (41%) had clinically significant prostate cancer. Two hundred and fourteen (86%) had a positive prostate mpMRI using Likert score ⩾3; sensitivity was 97.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 92-99), specificity 21.9% (15.5-29.5), negative predictive value (NPV) 91.4% (76.9-98.1) and positive predictive value (PPV) 46.7% (35.2-47.8). One hundred and twenty-nine (51.8%) had a positive mpMRI using Likert score ⩾4; sensitivity was 80.6% (71.6-87.7), specificity 68.5% (60.3-75.9), NPV 83.3% (75.4-89.5) and PPV 64.3% (55.4-72.6). CONCLUSIONS: In men advised to have a repeat prostate biopsy, prostate mpMRI could be used to safely avoid a repeat biopsy with high sensitivity for clinically significant cancers. However, such a strategy can miss some significant cancers and overdiagnose insignificant cancers depending on the mpMRI score threshold used to define which men should be biopsied.

Focal cryotherapy of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature.

Radical/whole gland treatment for prostate cancer has significant side-effects. Therefore focal treatments such as cryotherapy have been used to treat localized lesions whilst aiming to provide adequate cancer control with minimal side-effects. We performed a systematic review of Pubmed/Medline and Cochrane databases' to yield 9 papers for primary focal prostate cryotherapy and 2 papers for focal salvage treatment (radio-recurrent). The results of 1582 primary patients showed biochemical disease-free survival between 71-93% at 9-70 months follow-up. Incontinence rates were 0-3.6% and ED 0-42%. Recto-urethral fistula occurred in only 2 patients. Salvage focal cryotherapy had biochemical disease-free survival of 50-68% at 3 years. ED occurred in 60-71%. Focal cryotherapy appears to be an effective treatment for primary localized prostate cancer and compares favorably to radical/whole gland treatments in medium-term oncological outcomes and side-effects. Although more studies are needed it is also effective for radio-recurrent cancer with a low complications rates.

Biopsy strategies for selecting patients for focal therapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Focal therapy for localised prostate cancer requires accurate disease localization and characterization. Standard trans-rectal ultrasound biopsy can miss significant cancer and cannot accurately localize prostate cancer to guide focal therapy. This article examines various biopsy and imaging strategies to determine which is the most useful in diagnosing prostate cancer suitable for treatment with focal therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Advances in MRI and ultrasound have been combined with different biopsy techniques such as transperineal and targeted biopsy versus transrectal and whole-gland sampling to see which method detects and localizes cancer while reducing the burden of biopsy on patients. SUMMARY: Studies tended to report on overall cancer detection rates as opposed to clinically significant cancer detection rates. A standard definition of clinically significant cancer must first be defined and validated against an accurate sampling strategy such as radical prostatectomy or transperineal prostate mapping biopsy. Image-guided targeted biopsy has increased detection rates of clinically significant cancer rate with fewer number of cores compared with whole-gland sampling. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to identify a combined image and biopsy technique that detects and localizes the highest rate of clinically significant cancer while decreasing the risk to patients, in order to guide focal therapy.