Therapy decisions after diagnosis of prostate cancer in men with negative prostate MRI.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the clinical implications of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) negative prostate cancer (PCa) in a cohort of men undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy. METHODS: We included all men without prior diagnosis of PCa undergoing transperineal template saturation ± fusion-guided targeted biopsy of the prostate between November 2014 and March 2018. Before biopsy, all patients underwent MRI and biopsies were performed irrespective of imaging results. Baseline characteristics, imaging, biopsy results, and follow-up information were retrieved from the patient charts. Patients were classified as either MRI negative (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PIRADS] ≤ 2) or positive (PIRADS ≥ 3). ISUP grade group 1 was defined as clinically nonsignificant (nsPCa) and ≥2 as clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Primary outcome was the individual therapeutic decision after diagnosis of PCa stratified according to MRI visibility. Secondary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of MRI, and the urooncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP). RESULTS: From 515 patients undergoing prostate biopsy, 171 (33.2%) patients had a negative and 344 (66.8%) a positive MRI. Pathology review stratified for MRI negative and positive cases revealed nsPCa in 27 (15.8%) and 32 (9.3%) and csPCa in 26 (15.2%) and 194 (56.4%) of the patients, respectively. The rate of active treatment in the MRI negative was lower compared with the MRI positive cohort (12.3% vs. 53.2%; odd ratio [OR] = 0.12; p < 0.001). While men with negative MRI were more likely to undergo active surveillance (AS) than MRI positive patients (18.1% vs. 10.8%; OR = 1.84; p = 0.027), they rarely underwent RP (6.4% vs. 40.7%, OR = 0.10; p < 0.001). Logistic regression revealed that a negative MRI was independently protective for active treatment (OR = 0.32, p = 0.014). The specificity, sensitivity, negative, and positive predictive value of MRI for detection of csPCa were 49.2%, 88.2%, 56.4%, and 84.8%, respectively. The rate of adverse clinicopathological outcome features (pT3/4, ISUP ≥4, or prostate-specific antigen [PSA]-persistence) following RP was 4.7% for men with MRI negative compared to 17.4% for men with MRI positive PCa (OR = 3.1, p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: Only few men with MRI negative PCa need active cancer treatment at the time of diagnosis, while the majority opts for AS. Omitting prostate biopsies and performing a follow-up MRI may be a safe alternative to reduce the number of unnecessary interventions.

External Validation and Comparison of Prostate Cancer Risk Calculators Incorporating Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We sought to externally validate recently published prostate cancer risk calculators incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to predict clinically significant prostate cancer. We also compared the performance of these calculators to that of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging naïve prostate cancer risk calculators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis who underwent transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy with fusion guided targeted biopsy between November 2014 and March 2018 at our academic tertiary referral center. Any Gleason pattern 4 or greater was defined as clinically significant prostate cancer. Predictors, which were patient age, prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination, prostate volume, family history, previous prostate biopsy and the highest region of interest according to the PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System), were retrospectively collected. Four multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prostate cancer risk calculators and 2 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging naïve prostate cancer risk calculators were evaluated for discrimination, calibration and the clinical net benefit using ROC analysis, calibration plots and decision curve analysis. RESULTS: Of the 468 men 193 (41%) were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer. Three multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prostate cancer risk calculators showed similar discrimination with a ROC AUC significantly higher than that of the other prostate cancer risk calculators (AUC 0.83-0.85 vs 0.69-0.74). Calibration in the large showed 2% deviation from the true amount of clinically significant prostate cancer for 2 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging risk calculators while the other calculators showed worse calibration at 11% to 27%. A clinical net benefit was observed only for 3 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging risk calculators at biopsy thresholds of 15% or greater. None of the 6 investigated prostate cancer risk calculators demonstrated clinical usefulness against a biopsy all strategy at thresholds less than 15%. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prostate cancer risk calculators varies but they generally outperform multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging naïve prostate cancer risk calculators in regard to discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness. External validation in other biopsy settings is highly encouraged.

Erratum: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of untreated renal calculi.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfx151.].

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of untreated renal calculi.

BACKGROUND: The reported success rates for treatments of kidney stones with either extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) are conflicting. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESWL and URS for previously untreated renal calculi. METHODS: All patients treated with ESWL or URS at our tertiary care centre between 2003 and 2015 were retrospectively identified. Patients with previously untreated kidney stones and a stone diameter of 5-20 mm were included. Stone-free, freedom from reintervention and complication rates were recorded. Independent predictors of stone-free and freedom from reintervention rates were identified by multivariable logistic regression and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1282 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 999 (78%) underwent ESWL and 283 (22%) had URS. During post-operative follow-up, only treatment modality and stone size could independently predict stone-free and freedom from reintervention rates. After propensity score matching, ESWL showed significantly lower stone-free rates [ESWL (71%) versus URS (84%)] and fewer patients with freedom from reintervention [ESWL (55%) versus URS (79%)] than URS. Complications were scarce for both treatments and included Clavien Grade 3a in 0.8% versus 0% and Grade 3b in 0.5% versus 0.4% of ESWL and URS treated patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment success was mainly dependent on stone size and treatment modality. URS might be the better treatment option for previously untreated kidney stones 5-20 mm, with similar morbidity but higher stone-free rates and fewer reinterventions than ESWL.