Aquablation therapy in large prostates (80-150 cc) for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: WATER II 3-year trial results.

Objective: The objective of this study is to determine if Aquablation therapy can maintain its effectiveness in treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with large-volume (80-150 cc) prostates at 3 years. Subjects and Methods: One hundred one men with moderate-to-severe BPH symptoms and prostate volumes between 80 and 150 cc were enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, international clinical trial in late 2017. Baseline, procedural, and follow-up parameters were recorded at baseline and scheduled postoperative visits. IPSS, Qmax, and treatment failure are reported at 3 years. Results: The mean prostate volume was 107 cc (range 80-150). Mean IPSS improved from 23.2 at baseline to 6.5 at 3 years (16.3-point improvement, p < 0.0001). Mean IPSS quality of life improved from 4.6 at baseline to 1.1 at 3 years (improvement of 3.4 points, p < 0.0001). Maximum urinary flow increased from 8.7 to 18.5 cc/s. At 3 year follow-up, 6% of treated patients needed BPH medication and an additional 3% required surgical retreatment for LUTS. Conclusions: Three-year follow-up demonstrates a sustained symptom reduction response along with low irreversible complications to Aquablation in men with LUTS due to BPH and prostates of 80-150 cc. Current treatment options available for men with prostates of this size have similar efficacy outcomes but are burdened with high rates of irreversible complications. There are now numerous clinical studies with Aquablation used in various prostates sizes, and it should be offered as an option to men with LUTS due to BPH.

Five-year outcomes for Aquablation therapy compared to TURP: results from a double-blind, randomized trial in men with LUTS due to BPH.

INTRODUCTION: To determine if Aquablation therapy can maintain long term effectiveness in treating men with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with a baseline prostate volume between 30 and 80 mL at 5 years compared to TURP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a double-blinded, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial, 181 patients with moderate to severe LUTS secondary to BPH underwent TURP or Aquablation. The primary efficacy endpoint was reduction in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 6 months. The primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of Clavien-Dindo persistent Grade 1 or Grade 2 or higher operative complications at 3 months. The assessments included IPSS, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and uroflow (Qmax). The patients were followed for 5 years. RESULTS: The primary safety endpoint was successfully achieved at 3 months where the Aquablation group had a lower event rate than TURP (26% vs. 42%, p = .0149 for superiority). Procedure-related ejaculatory dysfunction was lower for Aquablation (7% vs. 25%, p = .0004). The primary efficacy endpoint was successfully achieved at 6 months, where the mean IPSS decreased from baseline by 16.9 points for Aquablation and 15.1 points for TURP; the mean difference in change score at 6 months was 1.8 points larger for Aquablation (p < .0001 for non-inferiority, p = .1346 for superiority). At 5 years, IPSS scores improved by 15.1 points in the Aquablation group and 13.2 points in TURP (p = .2764). However, for men with larger prostates (≥ 50 mL), IPSS reduction was 3.5 points greater across all follow up visits in the Aquablation group compared to the TURP group (p = .0123). Improvement in peak urinary flow rate was 125% and 89% compared to baseline for Aquablation and TURP, respectively. The risk of patients needing a secondary BPH therapy, defined as needing BPH medication or surgical intervention, up to 5 years due to recurrent LUTS was 51% less in the Aquablation arm compared to the TURP arm. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in net health outcomes from Aquablation therapy outweigh those offered by a TURP when considering the efficacy benefit along with the lower risk of needing a secondary BPH therapy and avoiding retrograde ejaculation. Following Aquablation therapy, symptom reduction and uroflow improvement at 5 years have shown to be durable and consistent across all years of follow up compared to TURP. Larger prostates (≥ 50 mL) demonstrated a larger safety and efficacy benefit for Aquablation over TURP.

Three-year outcomes after Aquablation therapy compared to TURP: results from a blinded randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: To compare 3-year efficacy and safety after prostate resection with Aquablation therapy or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty-one patients assigned to either Aquablation therapy or TURP were followed for 3 years postoperatively. Patients and follow up assessors were blinded to treatment. Assessments included International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ-EjD), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and uroflow. RESULTS: Over 3 years of treatment, improvements in IPSS scores were statistically similar across groups. Mean 3-year improvements were 14.4 and 13.9 points in the Aquablation and TURP groups, respectively (difference of 0.6 points, 95% CI -3.3-2.2, p = .6848). Similarly, 3-year improvements in Qmax were 11.6 and 8.2 cc/sec (difference of 3.3 [95% CI -0.5-7.1] cc/sec, p = .0848). At 3 years, PSA was reduced significantly in both groups by 0.9 and 1.1 ng/mL, respectively; the reduction was similar across groups (p = .5983). There were no surgical retreatments for BPH beyond 20 months for either Aquablation or TURP. CONCLUSIONS: Three-year BPH symptom reduction and urinary flow rate improvement were similar after TURP and Aquablation therapy. No subjects required surgical retreatment beyond 20 months postoperatively. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02505919).

Prospective evaluation of fexapotide triflutate injection treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: 4-year results.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to determine the safety and efficacy of fexapotide triflutate (FT) 2.5 mg and 15 mg for the treatment of Grade Group 1 prostate cancer. METHODS: Prospective randomized transrectal intraprostatic single injection FT 2.5 mg (n = 49), FT 15 mg (n = 48) and control active surveillance (AS) (n = 49) groups were compared in 146 patients at 28 U.S. sites, with elective AS crossover (n = 18) to FT after first follow-up biopsy at 45 days. Patients were followed for 5 years including biopsies (baseline, 45 days, and 18, 36, and 54 months thereafter), and urological evaluations with PSA every 6 months. Patients with Gleason grade increase or who elected surgical or radiotherapeutic intervention exited the study and were cumulatively included in the data analysis. Percentage of normal biopsies in baseline focus quadrant, tumor grades, and volumes; and outcomes including Gleason grade in entire prostate as well as treated prostate lobe, interventions associated with Gleason grade increase and total incidence of interventions were assessed. RESULTS: Significantly improved long-term clinical outcomes were found after 4-year follow-up, with percentages of patients progressing to interventions with and without Gleason grade increase significantly reduced by FT single treatment. Results in the FT 15-mg group were superior to the FT 2.5-mg dose group. There were no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs). CONCLUSIONS: FT showed statistically significant long-term efficacy in the treatment of Grade Group 1 patients regarding clinical and pathological progression. FT 15 mg showed superior results to FT 2.5 mg. There were no drug-related SAEs; FT injection was well tolerated.

Aquablation for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Large Prostates (80-150 cc): 1-Year Results.

OBJECTIVE: To report 12-month safety and effectiveness outcomes of the Aquablation procedure for the treatment of men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and large-volume prostates. METHODS: One hundred and one men with moderate-to-severe BPH symptoms and prostate volumes of 80-150 cc underwent a robotic-assisted Aquablation procedure in a prospective multicenter international clinical trial. Functional and safety outcomes were assessed at 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Mean prostate volume was 107 cc (range 80-150). Mean operative time was 37 minutes and mean Aquablation resection time was 8 minutes. The average length of hospital stay following the procedure was 1.6 days. Mean International Prostate Symptom Score improved from 23.2 at baseline to 6.2 at 12 months (P <.0001). Mean International Prostate Symptom Score quality of life improved from 4.6 at baseline to 1.3 at 12-month follow-up (P <.0001). Significant improvements were seen in Qmax (12-month improvement of 12.5 cc/sec) and postvoid residual (drop of 171 cc in those with postvoid residual >100 at baseline). Antegrade ejaculation was maintained in 81% of sexually active men. No patient underwent a repeat procedure for BPH symptoms. There was a 2% de novo incontinence rate at 12 months, and 10 patients did require a transfusion postoperatively while 5 required take back fulgurations. At 12 months, prostate-specific antigen reduced from 7.1 ± 5.9 ng/mL at baseline to 4.4 ± 4.3 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: The Aquablation procedure is demonstrated to be safe and effective in treating men with large prostates (80-150 cc) after 1 year of follow-up, with an acceptable complication rate and without a significant increase in procedure or resection time compared to smaller sized glands. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03123250.

Two-Year Outcomes After Aquablation Compared to TURP: Efficacy and Ejaculatory Improvements Sustained.

INTRODUCTION: To compare 2-year safety and efficacy outcomes after Aquablation or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: One hundred eighty-one patients with BPH were assigned at random (2:1 ratio) to either Aquablation or TURP. Patients and follow-up assessors were blinded to treatment. Assessments included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ), International Index of Erectile Function and uroflow. The focus of analysis was 2-year outcomes. RESULTS: At 2 years, IPSS scores improved by 14.7 points in the Aquablation group and 14.9 points in TURP (p = .8304, 95% CI for difference - 2.1 to 2.6 points). Two-year improvements in maximum flow rate (Qmax) were large in both groups at 11.2 and 8.6 cc/s for Aquablation and TURP, respectively (p = 0.1880, 95% CI for difference - 1.3 to 6.4). Sexual function as assessed by MSHQ was stable in the Aquablation group and decreased slightly in the TURP group. At 2 years, PSA was reduced significantly in both groups by 0.7 and 1.2 points, respectively; the reduction was similar across groups (p = 0.1816). Surgical retreatment rates after 12 months for Aquablation were 1.7% and 0% for TURP. Over 2 years, surgical BPH retreatment rates were 4.3% and 1.5% (p = 0.4219), respectively. CONCLUSION: Two-year efficacy outcomes after TURP and Aquablation were similar, and the rate of surgical retreatment was low and similar to TURP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT02505919. FUNDING: PROCEPT BioRobotics.

Symptom relief and anejaculation after aquablation or transurethral resection of the prostate: subgroup analysis from a blinded randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) robotic surgery with aquablation would have a more pronounced benefit in certain patient subgroups, such as men with more challenging anatomies (e.g. large prostates, large middle lobes) and men with moderate BPH. METHODS: We conducted prespecified and post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses from a double-blind, multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial that compared transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) using either standard electrocautery vs surgery using robotic waterjet (aquablation) to determine whether certain baseline factors predicted more marked responses after aquablation as compared with TURP. The primary efficacy endpoint was reduction in International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 6 months. The primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of Clavien-Dindo persistent grade 1 or grade ≥2 surgical complications. RESULTS: For men with larger prostates (50-80 g), the mean IPSS reduction was four points greater after aquablation than after TURP (P = 0.001), a larger difference than the overall result (1.8 points; P = 0.135). Similarly, the primary safety endpoint difference (20% vs 46% [26% difference]; P = 0.008) was greater for men with large prostate compared with the overall result (26% vs 42% [16% difference]; P = 0.015). Postoperative anejaculation was also less common after aquablation compared with TURP in sexually active men with large prostates (2% vs 41%; P < 0.001) vs the overall results (10% vs 36%; P < 0.001). Exploratory analysis showed larger IPSS changes after aquablation in men with enlarged middle lobes, men with severe middle lobe obstruction, men with a low baseline maximum urinary flow rate, and men with elevated (>100) post-void residual urine volume. CONCLUSIONS: In men with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms attributable to BPH and larger, more complex prostates, aquablation was associated with both superior symptom score improvements and a superior safety profile, with a significantly lower rate of postoperative anejaculation. The standardized, robotically executed, surgical approach with aquablation may overcome the increased outcome variability in more complex anatomy, resulting in superior symptom score reduction.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Aquablation versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: One-year Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To report 1-year safety and efficacy outcomes after either Aquablation or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) METHODS: This double-blinded, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial assigned 181 patients with BPH-related moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms to either electrocautery-based prostate resection (TURP) or Aquablation. Efficacy endpoints included reduction in International Prostate Symptom Score and improvement in uroflow parameters. The primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of Clavien-Dindo persistent grade 1 or grade 2 or higher complications. RESULTS: BPH symptom score improvements were similar across groups with 12-month reduction of 15.1 points after TURP or Aquablation. In both groups, mean maximum urinary flow rates increased markedly postoperatively, with mean improvements of 10.3 cc/s for Aquablation versus 10.6 cc/s for TURP (P = .8632). At 1 year, Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was reduced significantly (P < .01) in both groups by 1 point; the reduction was similar across groups (P = .9125). Surgical retreatment for BPH rates for TURP were 1.5% and Aquablation 2.6% within 1 year from the study procedure (P = not significant (NS)). The rate of late complications was low, with no procedure-related adverse events after month 6. CONCLUSION: The 1-year outcomes after TURP and Aquablation were similar and the rate of late procedure-related complications was low. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02505919).

The Safety and Antiviral Activity of BZF961 with or without Ritonavir in Patients Infected with Hepatitis C Virus: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial.

PURPOSE: Infection with hepatitis C virus is the leading cause of infectious disease mortality in the United States. BZF961 is a novel small molecule inhibitor of the hepatitis C virus NS3-4A protease. Here we present the results of a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multicentered study in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype-1 infection. METHODS: Patients were enrolled sequentially in 2 parts and treated for 3days. BZF961 was administered as monotherapy (500mg BID for 3 days) or in combination with the cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibitor ritonavir to boost its exposure (BZF961 10, 20, or 50mg QD or BID). FINDINGS: BZF961 was safe and well tolerated in the patients studied with no serious adverse events. There were no appreciable differences in adverse events among patients who received BZF961, BZF961 with ritonavir, or placebo. There was a significant, clinically meaningful reduction in viral load from baseline in patients treated either with BZF961 500mg every 12hours alone or BZF961 50mg every 12hours in combination with ritonavir. Activity against the hepatitis C virus of the lower-dose regimens was apparent but more modest. There were no relevant changes from baseline viral loads in placebo-treated patients. IMPLICATIONS: Coadministration of ritonavir with BZF961 boosted BZF961 exposure (including Cmin, which is the clinically relevant parameter associated with antiviral activity) in a therapeutic range with less variability compared with BZF961 alone. For strategic reasons, BZF961 is no longer under development.

Effect of Meropenem-Vaborbactam vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam on Clinical Cure or Improvement and Microbial Eradication in Complicated Urinary Tract Infection: The TANGO I Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Meropenem-vaborbactam is a combination carbapenem/beta-lactamase inhibitor and a potential treatment for severe drug-resistant gram-negative infections. Objective: To evaluate efficacy and adverse events of meropenem-vaborbactam in complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), including acute pyelonephritis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, multicenter, multinational, randomized clinical trial (TANGO I) conducted November 2014 to April 2016 and enrolling patients (≥18 years) with complicated UTI, stratified by infection type and geographic region. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive meropenem-vaborbactam (2g/2g over 3 hours; n = 274) or piperacillin-tazobactam (4g/0.5g over 30 minutes; n = 276) every 8 hours. After 15 or more doses, patients could be switched to oral levofloxacin if they met prespecified criteria for improvement, to complete 10 days of total treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point for FDA criteria was overall success (clinical cure or improvement and microbial eradication composite) at end of intravenous treatment in the microbiologic modified intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Primary end point for European Medicines Agency (EMA) criteria was microbial eradication at test-of-cure visit in the microbiologic modified ITT and microbiologic evaluable populations. Prespecified noninferiority margin was -15%. Because the protocol prespecified superiority testing in the event of noninferiority, 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated. Results: Among 550 patients randomized, 545 received study drug (mean age, 52.8 years; 361 [66.2%] women; 374 [68.6%] in the microbiologic modified ITT population; 347 [63.7%] in the microbiologic evaluable population; 508 [93.2%] completed the trial). For the FDA primary end point, overall success occurred in 189 of 192 (98.4%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 171 of 182 (94.0%) with piperacillin-tazobactam (difference, 4.5% [95% CI, 0.7% to 9.1%]; P < .001 for noninferiority). For the EMA primary end point, microbial eradication in the microbiologic modified ITT population occurred in 128 of 192 (66.7%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 105 of 182 (57.7%) with piperacillin-tazobactam (difference, 9.0% [95% CI, -0.9% to 18.7%]; P < .001 for noninferiority); microbial eradication in the microbiologic evaluable population occurred in 118 of 178 (66.3%) vs 102 of 169 (60.4%) (difference, 5.9% [95% CI, -4.2% to 16.0%]; P < .001 for noninferiority). Adverse events were reported in 106 of 272 (39.0%) with meropenem-vaborbactam vs 97 of 273 (35.5%) with piperacillin-tazobactam. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with complicated UTI, including acute pyelonephritis and growth of a baseline pathogen, meropenem-vaborbactam vs piperacillin-tazobactam resulted in a composite outcome of complete resolution or improvement of symptoms along with microbial eradication that met the noninferiority criterion. Further research is needed to understand the spectrum of patients in whom meropenem-vaborbactam offers a clinical advantage. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02166476.

Fexapotide triflutate: results of long-term safety and efficacy trials of a novel injectable therapy for symptomatic prostate enlargement.

PURPOSE: These studies were undertaken to determine if fexapotide triflutate 2.5 mg transrectal injectable (FT) has significant long-term (LT) safety and efficacy for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: Two placebo controlled double-blind randomized parallel group trials with 995 BPH patients at 72 sites treated 3:2 FT:placebo, with open-label FT crossover (CO) re-injection in 2 trials n = 344 and long-term follow-up (LF) 2-6.75 years (mean 3.58 years, median 3.67 years; FT re-injection CO mean 4.27 years, median 4.42 years) were evaluated. 12 months post-treatment patients elected no further treatment, approved oral medications, FT, or interventional treatment. Primary endpoint variable was change in Symptom Score (IPSS) at 12 months and at LF. CO primary co-endpoints were 3-year incidence of (1) surgery for BPH in FT treated CO patients versus patients crossed over to oral BPH medications and (2) surgery or acute urinary retention in FT-treated CO placebo patients versus placebo patients crossed over to oral BPH medications. 28 CO secondary endpoints assessed surgical and symptomatic outcomes in FT reinjected patients versus conventional BPH medication CO and control subgroups at 2 and 3 years. RESULTS: FT injection had no significant safety differences from placebo. LF IPSS change from baseline was higher in FT treated patients compared to placebo (median FT group improvement - 5.2 versus placebo - 3.0, p < 0.0001). LF incidence of AUR (1.08% p = 0.0058) and prostate cancer (PCa) (1.1% p = 0.0116) were both reduced in FT treated patients. LF incidence of intervention for BPH was reduced in the FT group versus oral BPH medications (8.08% versus 27.85% at 3 years, p < 0.0001). LF incidence of intervention or AUR in placebo CO group with FT versus placebo CO group with oral medications was reduced (6.07% versus 33.3% at 3 years, p < 0.0001). 28/28 secondary efficacy endpoints were reached in LF CO re-injection studies. CONCLUSIONS: FT 2.5 mg is a safe and effective transrectal injectable for LT treatment of BPH. FT treated patients also had reduced need for BPH intervention, and reduced incidence of PCa and AUR.

WATER: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Aquablation® vs Transurethral Resection of the Prostate in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: We compared the safety and efficacy of Aquablation and transurethral prostate resection for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a double-blind, multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial 181 patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia underwent transurethral prostate resection or Aquablation. The primary efficacy end point was the reduction in International Prostate Symptom Score at 6 months. The primary safety end point was the development of Clavien-Dindo persistent grade 1, or 2 or higher operative complications. RESULTS: Mean total operative time was similar for Aquablation and transurethral prostate resection (33 vs 36 minutes, p = 0.2752) but resection time was lower for Aquablation (4 vs 27 minutes, p <0.0001). At month 6 patients treated with Aquablation and transurethral prostate resection experienced large I-PSS improvements. The prespecified study noninferiority hypothesis was satisfied (p <0.0001). Of the patients who underwent Aquablation and transurethral prostate resection 26% and 42%, respectively, experienced a primary safety end point, which met the study primary noninferiority safety hypothesis and subsequently demonstrated superiority (p = 0.0149). Among sexually active men the rate of anejaculation was lower in those treated with Aquablation (10% vs 36%, p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical prostate resection using Aquablation showed noninferior symptom relief compared to transurethral prostate resection but with a lower risk of sexual dysfunction. Larger prostates (50 to 80 ml) demonstrated a more pronounced superior safety and efficacy benefit. Longer term followup would help assess the clinical value of Aquablation.

Association Between Combined TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 RNA Urinary Testing and Detection of Aggressive Prostate Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Potential survival benefits from treating aggressive (Gleason score, ≥7) early-stage prostate cancer are undermined by harms from unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis of indolent disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori primary hypothesis that combined measurement of PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG (T2:ERG) RNA in the urine after digital rectal examination would improve specificity over measurement of prostate-specific antigen alone for detecting cancer with Gleason score of 7 or higher. As a secondary objective, to evaluate the potential effect of such urine RNA testing on health care costs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, multicenter diagnostic evaluation and validation in academic and community-based ambulatory urology clinics. Participants were a referred sample of men presenting for first-time prostate biopsy without preexisting prostate cancer: 516 eligible participants from among 748 prospective cohort participants in the developmental cohort and 561 eligible participants from 928 in the validation cohort. INTERVENTIONS/EXPOSURES: Urinary PCA3 and T2:ERG RNA measurement before prostate biopsy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Presence of prostate cancer having Gleason score of 7 or higher on prostate biopsy. Pathology testing was blinded to urine assay results. In the developmental cohort, a multiplex decision algorithm was constructed using urine RNA assays to optimize specificity while maintaining 95% sensitivity for predicting aggressive prostate cancer at initial biopsy. Findings were validated in a separate multicenter cohort via prespecified analysis, blinded per prospective-specimen-collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation (PRoBE) criteria. Cost effects of the urinary testing strategy were evaluated by modeling observed biopsy results and previously reported treatment outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 516 men in the developmental cohort (mean age, 62 years; range, 33-85 years) combining testing of urinary T2:ERG and PCA3 at thresholds that preserved 95% sensitivity for detecting aggressive prostate cancer improved specificity from 18% to 39%. Among the 561 men in the validation cohort (mean age, 62 years; range, 27-86 years), analysis confirmed improvement in specificity (from 17% to 33%; lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 0.73%; prespecified 1-sided P = .04), while high sensitivity (93%) was preserved for aggressive prostate cancer detection. Forty-two percent of unnecessary prostate biopsies would have been averted by using the urine assay results to select men for biopsy. Cost analysis suggested that this urinary testing algorithm to restrict prostate biopsy has greater potential cost-benefit in younger men. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combined urinary testing for T2:ERG and PCA3 can avert unnecessary biopsy while retaining robust sensitivity for detecting aggressive prostate cancer with consequent potential health care cost savings.

Can urinary PCA3 supplement PSA in the early detection of prostate cancer?

PURPOSE: Given the limited sensitivity and specificity of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), its widespread use as a screening tool has raised concerns for the overdiagnosis of low-risk and the underdiagnosis of high-grade prostate cancer. To improve early-detection biopsy decisions, the National Cancer Institute conducted a prospective validation trial to assess the diagnostic performance of the prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) urinary assay for the detection of prostate cancer among men screened with PSA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 859 men (mean age, 62 years) from 11 centers scheduled for a diagnostic prostate biopsy between December 2009 and June 2011 were enrolled. The primary outcomes were to assess whether PCA3 could improve the positive predictive value (PPV) for an initial biopsy (at a score > 60) and the negative predictive value (NPV) for a repeat biopsy (at a score < 20). RESULTS: For the detection of any cancer, PPV was 80% (95% CI, 72% to 86%) in the initial biopsy group, and NPV was 88% (95% CI, 81% to 93%) in the repeat biopsy group. The addition of PCA3 to individual risk estimation models (which included age, race/ethnicity, prior biopsy, PSA, and digital rectal examination) improved the stratification of cancer and of high-grade cancer. CONCLUSION: These data independently support the role of PCA3 in reducing the burden of prostate biopsies among men undergoing a repeat prostate biopsy. For biopsy-naive patients, a high PCA3 score (> 60) significantly increases the probability that an initial prostate biopsy will identify cancer.

PCA3 molecular urine test as a predictor of repeat prostate biopsy outcome in men with previous negative biopsies: a prospective multicenter clinical study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the clinical usefulness of the PROGENSA® PCA3 Assay for predicting repeat prostate biopsy outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with at least 1 prior negative prostate biopsy who were scheduled for repeat prostate biopsy based on best clinical judgment were enrolled at 14 centers. Whole blood and post-digital rectal examination urine samples were collected before extended template transrectal biopsy with 12 or more cores. Urinary PCA3 scores and biopsy outcomes were assessed by logistic regression analysis, which also included age, race, serum prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, family history of prostate cancer and the number of previous negative biopsy sessions. RESULTS: A total of 466 men were included in study and prostate cancer was identified in 21.9%. A PCA3 score cutoff of 25 yielded 77.5% sensitivity, 57.1% specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of 90% and 33.6%, respectively. On multivariable logistic regression men with a PCA3 score of less than 25 were 4.56 times as likely to have a negative repeat biopsy as men with a score of 25 or greater. PCA3 score significantly increased the predictive accuracy of the logistic regression model. At 90% sensitivity adding the PCA3 score to the model increased specificity, and positive and negative predictive values by 22.6%, 6.4% and 7.1%, respectively, relative to the model without the PCA3 score. CONCLUSIONS: The PCA3 score supplements serum prostate specific antigen and other clinical information to provide more accurate prediction of repeat biopsy outcome. Thus, it provides clinicians and patients with independent, clinically useful information to make more informed repeat biopsy decisions.

Similar frequency of testosterone surge after repeat injections of goserelin (Zoladex) 3.6 mg and 10.8 mg: results of a randomized open-label trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether testosterone surges occur on repeat injections of 3.6 or 10.8 mg goserelin (Zoladex) depot and, if so, their extent. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer for whom hormonal therapy was indicated were randomized to open-label goserelin 3.6 mg every 28 days (n = 129) or 10.8 mg every 84 days (n = 118) for 48 weeks. Serum testosterone and luteinizing hormone levels were measured before repeat injection on day 1 of each treatment cycle and then on days 4 and 8. Surges were defined in three ways: type 1, simultaneous increase in both testosterone and luteinizing hormone to within the age-specific normal range; type 2, increase in testosterone to within the age-specific normal range; and type 3, elevation in testosterone from less than to greater than the castrate level (greater than 18.5 ng/dL). RESULTS: Most patients did not experience a testosterone surge. Two patients (1.8%) in the 10.8-mg group had a type 1 surge after one repeat injection and two (1.6%) in the 3.6-mg group had a type 2 surge after one repeat injection. Type 3 surges occurred after one or more repeat injections in 34 (27.0%) and 20 (17.7%) patients in the 3.6-mg and 10.8-mg groups, respectively (P = 0.065); the mean surge (+/- standard deviation) was 11.2 ng/dL (+/-13.5) and 17.3 ng/dL (+/-24.6), respectively. No patient with a testosterone surge had clinical symptoms of a tumor flare reaction. CONCLUSIONS: The testosterone levels were consistently maintained within the castrate range (18.5 ng/dL or less) in most (77.4%) patients receiving long-term 3.6 mg or 10.8 mg goserelin.