Only <10% of Patients Selected for Radical Prostatectomy Reach the Competing Mortality Rate of the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT).

In the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT), surgery was not associated with lower mortality compared with observation. However, the high competing mortality rate of approximately 33% after 10 yr among the PIVOT study population has raised concerns on the generalizability of these results. We investigated 4282 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution between 1992 and 2010 to determine which subgroups harbored a competing (non-prostate cancer) mortality risk comparable to that of PIVOT and tested several combinations of higher age and comorbidities ("worst case scenarios") to identify subgroups reaching or even superseding the competing mortality rate of the PIVOT population. The competing mortality rate of PIVOT was not reached till an age-adjusted Charlson score of 5 or higher (corresponding to an age of 70-79 yr with diabetes with end-organ damage). Only 8.9% of patients belonged to this high-risk subgroup, and only small subgroups comprising 1-5% patients superseded the competing mortality rate among the PIVOT study population. This data underline that the results of PIVOT should be used with great caution to exclude candidates for radical prostatectomy with comorbidities from curative treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY: Only <10% of patients selected for radical prostatectomy reached the competing mortality rate of approximately 33% observed in the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT). The results of PIVOT should be used with great caution to exclude patients with concomitant diseases who seem otherwise fit for radical prostatectomy from curative treatment.

Evaluation of Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Fusion Biopsy Compared to Transrectal Systematic Biopsy in the Prediction of Tumour Aggressiveness in Patients with Previously Negative Biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the transperineal MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy (fusPbx) to transrectal systematic biopsy (sysPbx) in patients with previously negative biopsy and investigated the prediction of tumour aggressiveness with regard to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 710 patients underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), which was evaluated in accordance with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). The maximum PI-RADS (maxPI-RADS) was defined as the highest PI-RADS of all lesions detected in mpMRI. In case of proven prostate cancer (PCa) and performed RP, tumour grading of the biopsy specimen was compared to that of the RP. Significant PCa (csPCa) was defined according to Epstein criteria. RESULTS: Overall, scPCa was detected in 40% of patients. The detection rate of scPCa was 33% for fusPbx and 25% for sysPbx alone (p < 0.005). Patients with a maxPI-RADS ≥3 and a prostate specific antigen (PSA)-density ≥0.2 ng/mL2 harboured more csPCa than those with a PSA-density < 0.2 ng/mL2 (41% [33/81] vs. 20% [48/248]; p < 0.001). Compared to the RP specimen (n = 140), the concordance of tumour grading was 48% (γ = 0.57), 36% (γ = 0.31) and 54% (γ = 0.6) in fusPbx, sysPbx and comPbx, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of fusPbx and sysPbx outperforms both biopsy modalities in patients with re-biopsy. Additionally, the PSA-density may represent a predictor for csPCa in patients with maxPI-RADS ≥3.

Online support groups offer low-threshold backing for family and friends of patients with prostate cancer.

A prostate cancer diagnosis affects not only the patients but also their family and friends. We performed a secondary analysis of a survey of users of the largest German online support group (OSG) for prostate cancer. We collected socio-demographic, psychological and disease-related data over a three-month period in 2013. Among 769 participants with a complete questionnaire, 686 were patients, and 83 were family members and friends of other patients. The family and friends group comprised 33% spouses, 31% children and 36% people with other relationships to the patient ("others"). Compared to the patient group, the family and friends group showed higher scores for anxiety and depression and described a higher rate of metastatic disease in the patients with whom they had a relationship. The children of patients showed the highest psychological burden based on their scores for anxiety and depression. Only 7% of spouses and none of the children attended face-to-face support groups, compared to 70% of people in the "others" group. OSGs offer low-threshold support for family members and friends; specifically, they meet the needs of spouses and children who do not attend face-to-face support groups. To improve counselling efforts, physicians should be aware of this online resource.

Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Fusion Biopsy in Patients with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Under Active Surveillance Undergoing Surveillance Biopsy.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted biopsy of tumour-suspicious lesions detected in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays an increasing role in the active surveillance (AS) of patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of this study was to compare MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy (fusPbx) with systematic biopsy (sysPbx) in patients undergoing biopsy for AS. METHODS: Patients undergoing mpMRI and transperineal fusPbx combined with transrectal sysPbx (comPbx) as surveillance biopsy were investigated. The detection of Gleason score upgrading and reclassification according to Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance criteria were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were enrolled. PCa upgrading was detected in 39% by fusPbx and in 37% by sysPbx (p = 1.0). The percentage of patients who were reclassified in fusPbx and sysPbx (p = 0.45) were 64 and 59% respectively. ComPbx detected more frequently tumour upgrading than fusPbx (71 vs. 64%, p = 0.016) and sysPbx (71 vs. 59%, p < 0.001) and more patients had to be reclassified after comPbx than after fusPbx or sysPbx alone. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of fusPbx and sysPbx outperforms both modalities alone with regard to the detection of upgrading and reclassification in patients under AS. Because a high missing rate of significant PCa still exists in both biopsy modalities, a combination of fusPbx and sysPbx should be recommended in these patients.

Prospective comparison of transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion biopsy and transrectal systematic biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the detection of significant prostate cancer (PCa) and to compare transperineal MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy (fusPbx) with conventional transrectal systematic biopsy (sysPbx) in biopsy-naïve patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicentre, prospective trial investigated biopsy-naïve patients with suspicion of PCa undergoing transperineal fusPbx in combination with transrectal sysPbx (comPbx). The primary outcome was the detection of significant PCa, defined as Gleason pattern 4 or 5. We analysed the results after a study period of 2 years. RESULTS: The study included 214 patients. The median (range) number of targeted and systematic cores was 6 (2-15) and 12 (6-18), respectively. The overall PCa detection rate of comPbx was 52%. FusPbx detected more PCa than sysPbx (47% vs 43%; P = 0.15). The detection rate of significant PCa was 38% for fusPbx and 35% for sysPbx (P = 0.296). The rate of missed significant PCa was 14% in fusPbx and 21% in sysPbx. ComPbx detected significantly more significant PCa than fusPbx and sysPbx alone (44% vs 38% vs 35%; P < 0.005). In patients presenting with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 and 5 lesions there was a higher detection rate of significant PCa than in patients presenting with PI-RADS ≤3 lesions in comPbx (61% vs 14%; P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: For biopsy-naïve men with tumour-suspicious lesions in mpMRI, the combined approach outperformed both fusPbx and sysPbx in the detection of overall PCa and significant PCa. Thus, biopsy-naïve patients may benefit from sysPbx in combination with mpMRI targeted fusPbx.

Evaluation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Classification in the Prediction of Tumor Aggressiveness in Targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Fusion Biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to evaluate the prediction of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) with respect to the prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate and tumor aggressiveness in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound-fusion-biopsy (fusPbx) and in systematic biopsy (sysPbx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six hundred and twenty five patients undergoing multiparametric MRI were investigated. MRI findings were classified using PI-RADS v1 or v2. All patients underwent fusPbx combined with sysPbx (comPbx). The lesion with the highest PI-RADS was defined as maximum PI-RADS (maxPI-RADS). Gleason Score ≥7 (3 + 4) was defined as significant PCa. RESULTS: The overall PCa detection rate was 51% (n = 321; 39% significant PCa). The detection rate was 43% in fusPbx (n = 267; 34% significant PCa) and 36% in sysPbx (n = 223; 27% significant PCa). Nine percentage of significant PCa were detected by sysPbx alone. A total of 1,162 lesions were investigated. The detection rate of significant PCa in lesions with PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 9% (18/206), 12% (56/450), 27% (98/358), and 61% (90/148) respectively. maxPI-RADS ≥4 was the strongest predictor for the detection of significant PCa in comPbx (OR 2.77; 95% CI 1.81-4.24; p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: maxPI-RADS is the strongest predictor for the detection of significant PCa in comPbx. Due to a high detection rate of additional significant PCa in sysPbx, fusPbx should still be combined with sysPbx.

Direct comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results with final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasonography-fusion biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate and histological findings of both targeted MRI/ultrasonography-fusion prostate biopsy (PBx) and systematic PBx with final histology of the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 105 patients with prostate cancer (PCa) histopathologically proven using a combination of fusion Pbx and systematic PBx, who underwent RP, were investigated. All patients had been examined using mpMRI, applying the European Society of Urogenital Radiology criteria. Histological findings from the RP specimen were compared with those from the PBx. Whole-mount RP specimen and mpMRI results were directly compared by a uro-pathologist and a uro-radiologist in step-section analysis. RESULTS: In the 105 patients with histopathologically proven PCa by combination of fusion PBx and systematic PBx, the detection rate of PCa was 90% (94/105) in fusion PBx alone and 68% (72/105) in systematic PBx alone (P = 0.001). The combination PBx detected 23 (22%) Gleason score (GS) 6, 69 (66%) GS 7 and 13 (12%) GS ≥8 tumours. Fusion PBx alone detected 25 (26%) GS 6, 57 (61%) GS 7 and 12 (13%) GS ≥8 tumours. Systematic PBx alone detected 17 (24%) GS 6, 49 (68%) GS 7 and 6 (8%) GS ≥8 tumours. Fusion PBx alone would have missed 11 tumours (4% [4/105] of GS 6, 6% [6/105] of GS 7 and 1% [1/105] of GS ≥8 tumours). Systematic PBx alone would have missed 33 tumours (10% [10/105] of GS 6, 20% [21/105] of GS 7 and 2% [2/105] of GS ≥8 tumours). The rates of concordance with regard to GS between the PBx and RP specimen were 63% (n = 65), 54% (n = 56) and 75% (n = 78) in fusion, systematic and combination PBx (fusion and systematic PBx combined), respectively. Upgrading of the GS between PBx and RP specimen occurred in 33% (n = 34), 44% (n = 46) and 18% (n = 19) in fusion, systematic and combination PBx, respectively. γ-correlation for detection of any cancer was 0.76 for combination PBx, 0.68 for fusion PBx alone and 0.23 for systematic PBx alone. In all, 84% (n = 88) of index tumours were identified by mpMRI; 86% (n = 91) of index lesions on the mpMRI were proven in the RP specimen. CONCLUSIONS: Fusion PBx of tumour-suspicious lesions on mpMRI was associated with a higher detection rate of more aggressive PCa and a better tumour prediction in final histopathology than systematic PBx alone; however, combination PBx had the best concordance for the prediction of GS. Furthermore, the additional findings of systematic PBx reflect the multifocality of PCa, therefore, the combination of both biopsy methods would still represent the best approach for the prediction of the final tumour grading in PCa.