Do commonly used prostate medications alter prostate MRI and fusion biopsy performance?

AIMS: To determine whether phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDEi) or α-antagonists (AA) were associated with differences in region of interest (ROI) characteristics or prostate cancer detection on fusion biopsy (FB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records from 847 consecutive patients undergoing FB at three separate institutions over a period of 2 years were retrospectively reviewed. Associations between medication use, Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PIRADS) scores, and ROI locations were assessed with ordinal logistic regression. Associations with lesion size and International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) on biopsy were tested using multivariate regression. RESULTS: Medication use included PDEi in 14.2% and AA in 23.0%. PDEi use was associated with 19.3% smaller lesion diameter (-2.8 mm; CI from -4.8 to -0.7; p < 0.01) and lower PIRADS scores on MRI (OR 0.60; CI 0.40 - 1.00; p = 0.05). AA use was associated with higher PIRADS scores (OR 1.43; CI 0.97 - 2.11; p = 0.06), fewer positive fusion-directed biopsy cores (-28.6%, CI from -57.9 to 0.01%, p = 0.05), and downgrading on final pathology (-19%; CI from -40 to 2%; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: For PIRADS scores ≥ 3, PDEi use is associated with smaller ROI and lower PIRADS scores, while AA use is associated with higher PIRADS scores. Neither medication was associated with differences in biopsy GG. Prospective studies are needed to investigate the discordance between multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) results and oncologic outcomes associated with PDEi and AA use.

Initial Experience of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsy in the Community Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy is diagnostically superior to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. Fusion biopsy has an expanding role at major academic centers. However, the reproducibility of outcomes in the community setting is unknown. Our goal was to determine if there are significant differences in the yield of clinically significant prostate cancer upon implementation of fusion biopsy in the community setting. METHODS: We compared biopsy results from the first consecutive 175 patients undergoing fusion biopsy at an academic setting to the first 175 patients undergoing fusion biopsy at a community practice. Patients treated at an academic setting were matched to nonacademic setting treated patients using Mahalonobis distance matching. A treatment effects model was used to evaluate the effect of practice setting on the rate of clinically significant prostate cancer detection. RESULTS: The matching model resulted in 160 community based patients matched to 150 academic based patients. Balance was verified by reduction in standardized differences and variances ratios between samples. Standard errors and the 95% CI were calculated from 3,000 bootstrap samples. Practice setting had no significant effect on clinically significant prostate cancer detection, clinically significant prostate cancer detection by fusion biopsy, upgrading by fusion cores, upgrading by template cores, clinically significant prostate cancer missed by template cores or clinically significant prostate cancer missed by fusion cores. CONCLUSIONS: A sample-matched analysis of the first consecutive patients enrolled in fusion biopsy at an academic versus a community setting indicates that practice setting did not have a significant effect on the overall detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. This lends support to the use of fusion biopsy outside of academic centers.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Fusion Biopsy to Detect Progression in Patients with Existing Lesions on Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Active surveillance is an established option for men with low risk prostate cancer. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy may better identify patients for active surveillance compared to systematic 12-core biopsy due to improved risk stratification. To our knowledge the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in following men on active surveillance with visible lesions is unknown. We evaluated multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy to monitor men on active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective review included men from 2007 to 2015 with prostate cancer on active surveillance in whom magnetic resonance imaging visible lesions were monitored by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy. Progression was defined by ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade group 1 to 2 and ISUP grade group 2 to 3. Significance was considered at p ≤0.05. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients on active surveillance with 2 or more fusion guided biopsies were included in analysis. Mean followup was 25.5 months. Of the patients 29.5% had pathological progression. Targeted biopsy alone identified 44.9% of patients who progressed compared to 30.6% identified by systematic 12-core biopsy alone (p = 0.03). Fusion guided biopsy detected 26% more cases of pathological progression on surveillance biopsy compared to systematic 12-core biopsy. Progression on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was the sole predictor of pathological progression at surveillance biopsy (p = 0.013). Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging progression in the entire cohort had 81% negative predictive value, 35% positive predictive value, 77.6% sensitivity and 40.5% specificity in detecting pathological progression. CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging progression predicts the risk of pathological progression. Patients with stable multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings have a low rate of progression. Incorporating fusion guided biopsy in active surveillance nearly doubled our detection of pathological progression compared to systematic 12-core biopsy.

Corrigendum to "A Case of In-Bore Transperineal MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy of a Patient with Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1155/2015/676930.].

Preoperative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) in predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS/METHODS: From March 2007 to January 2015, 421 consecutive patients with prostate cancer (PCa) underwent preoperative MP-MRI and RP. BCR-free survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify clinical and imaging variables predictive of BCR. Logistic regression was performed to generate a nomogram to predict three-year BCR probability. RESULTS: Of the total cohort, 370 patients met inclusion criteria with 39 (10.5%) patients experiencing BCR. On multivariate analysis, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (p = 0.01), biopsy Gleason score (p = 0.0008), MP-MRI suspicion score (p = 0.03), and extracapsular extension on MP-MRI (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with time to BCR. A nomogram integrating these factors to predict BCR at three years after RP demonstrated a c-index of 0.84, outperforming the predictive value of Gleason score and PSA alone (c-index 0.74, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The addition of MP-MRI to standard clinical factors significantly improves prediction of BCR in a post-prostatectomy PCa cohort. This could serve as a valuable tool to support clinical decision-making in patients with moderate and high-risk cancers.

Prostate Cancer Diagnosis on Repeat Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy of Benign Lesions: Recommendations for Repeat Sampling.

PURPOSE: Urologists face a dilemma when a lesion identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is benign on image guided fusion biopsy. We investigated the detection rate of prostate cancer on repeat fusion biopsy in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions initially found to be pathologically benign on fusion biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of all patients from 2007 to 2014 who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and image guided fusion biopsy. We identified men who underwent rebiopsy of the same discrete lesion after initial fusion biopsy results were benign. Data were documented on a per lesion basis. We manually reviewed UroNav system (Invivo, Gainesville, Florida) needle tracking to verify accurate image registration. Multivariate analysis was used to identify clinical and imaging factors predictive of prostate cancer detection at repeat fusion biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 131 unique lesions were rebiopsied in 90 patients. Of these 131 resampled lesions 21 (16%) showed prostate cancer, which in 13 (61.9%) was Gleason 3 + 3. On multivariate analysis only lesion growth on repeat multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was significantly associated with prostate cancer detection at repeat biopsy (HR 3.274, 95% CI 1.205-8.896, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Pathologically benign multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions on initial image guided fusion biopsy are rarely found to harbor clinically significant prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. When prostate cancer was identified, most disease was low risk. An increase in lesion diameter was an independent predictor of prostate cancer detection. While these data are retrospective, they may provide some confidence in the reliability of negative initial image guided fusion biopsies despite a positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging finding.

Combined Biparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Prostate-specific Antigen in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Validation Study in a Biopsy-naive Patient Population.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the use of biparametric (T2- and diffusion-weighted) magnetic resonance imaging (B-MRI) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or PSA density (PSAD) in a biopsy-naive cohort at risk for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: All patients (n = 59) underwent PSA screening and digital rectal exam prior to a B-MRI followed by MRI or transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided targeted biopsy. Previously reported composite formulas incorporating screen positive lesions (SPL) on B-MRI and PSA or PSAD were developed to maximize PCa detection. For PSA, a patient was considered screen positive if PSA level + 6 × (the number of SPL) >14. For PSAD, screening was positive if PSAD × 14 + (the number of SPL) >4.25. These schemes were employed in this new test set to validate the initial formulas. Performance assessment of these formulas was determined for all cancer detection and for tumors with Gleason ≥3 + 4. RESULTS: Screen positive lesions on B-MRI had the highest sensitivity (95.5%) and negative predictive value of 71.4% compared with PSA and PSAD. B-MRI significantly improved sensitivity (43.2-72.7%, P = .0002) when combined with PSAD. The negative predictive value of PSA increased with B-MRI, achieving 91.7% for B-MRI and PSA for Gleason ≥3 + 4. Overall accuracies of the composite equations were 81.4% (B-MRI and PSA) and 78.0% (B-MRI and PSAD). CONCLUSION: Validation with a biopsy-naive cohort demonstrates the parameter SPL performed better than PSA or PSAD alone in accurately detecting PCa. The combined use of B-MRI, PSA, and PSAD resulted in improved accuracy for detecting clinically significant PCa.

Clinical anatomy of the G-spot.

The existence of the G-Spot has never been unequivocally confirmed. With increased public exposure and a trend towards sexual gratification, however, the impetus to elucidate this structure is greater than ever. This review will focus on research that has been conducted on the clinical anatomy of the G-Spot. Ultimately this review will show that while the distal area of the anterior vaginal wall appears to be the most sensitive region of the vagina, the existence of an anatomical "G-spot" remains to be demonstrated.

A Case of In-Bore Transperineal MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy of a Patient with Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an inflammatory disease that specifically affects the colon. Ulcerative colitis is primarily treated medically and refractory disease is treated with proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). Gastroenterologists advise against digital rectal exams, pelvic radiation therapy, and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsies of the prostates of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis patients. Any form of pouch manipulation can lead to severe bleeding, inflammation, and pain. Urologists are therefore faced with the challenge of doing a prostate biopsy without a transrectal ultrasound. We report the rare case of a patient with an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis who underwent in-bore transperineal MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate.

Does low intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy have a physiological effect on erectile function? Short-term results of a randomized, double-blind, sham controlled study.

PURPOSE: We investigated the clinical and physiological effect of low intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy on men with organic erectile dysfunction who are phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor responders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a 1-month phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor washout period, 67 men were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive 12 sessions of low intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy or sham therapy. Erectile function and penile hemodynamics were assessed before the first treatment (visit 1) and 1 month after the final treatment (followup 1) using validated sexual function questionnaires and venoocclusive strain gauge plethysmography. RESULTS: Clinically we found a significantly greater increase in the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function domain score from visit 1 to followup 1 in the treated group than in the sham treated group (mean ± SEM 6.7 ± 0.9 vs 3.0 ± 1.4, p = 0.0322). There were 19 men in the treated group who were initially unable to achieve erections hard enough for penetration (Erection Hardness Score 2 or less) who were able to achieve erections sufficiently firm for penetration (Erection Hardness Score 3 or greater) after low intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy, compared to none in the sham group. Physiologically penile hemodynamics significantly improved in the treated group but not in the sham group (maximal post-ischemic penile blood flow 8.2 vs 0.1 ml per minute per dl, p <0.0001). None of the men experienced discomfort or reported any adverse effects from the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized, double-blind, sham controlled study to our knowledge that shows that low intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy has a positive short-term clinical and physiological effect on the erectile function of men who respond to oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor therapy. The feasibility and tolerability of this treatment, coupled with its potential rehabilitative characteristics, make it an attractive new therapeutic option for men with erectile dysfunction.

Is the female G-spot truly a distinct anatomic entity?

INTRODUCTION: The existence of an anatomically distinct female G-spot is controversial. Reports in the public media would lead one to believe the G-spot is a well-characterized entity capable of providing extreme sexual stimulation, yet this is far from the truth. AIM: The aim of this article was to provide an overview of the evidence both supporting and refuting the existence of an anatomically distinct female G-spot. METHODS: PubMed search for articles published between 1950 and 2011 using key words "G-spot," "Grafenberg spot," "vaginal innervation," "female orgasm," "female erogenous zone," and "female ejaculation." Clinical trials, meeting abstracts, case reports, and review articles that were written in English and published in a peer-reviewed journal were selected for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measure of this article was to assess any valid objective data in the literature that scientifically evaluates the existence of an anatomically distinct G-spot. RESULTS: The literature cites dozens of trials that have attempted to confirm the existence of a G-spot using surveys, pathologic specimens, various imaging modalities, and biochemical markers. The surveys found that a majority of women believe a G-spot actually exists, although not all of the women who believed in it were able to locate it. Attempts to characterize vaginal innervation have shown some differences in nerve distribution across the vagina, although the findings have not proven to be universally reproducible. Furthermore, radiographic studies have been unable to demonstrate a unique entity, other than the clitoris, whose direct stimulation leads to vaginal orgasm. CONCLUSIONS: Objective measures have failed to provide strong and consistent evidence for the existence of an anatomical site that could be related to the famed G-spot. However, reliable reports and anecdotal testimonials of the existence of a highly sensitive area in the distal anterior vaginal wall raise the question of whether enough investigative modalities have been implemented in the search of the G-spot.