Patient and Context Factors in the Adoption of Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Although active surveillance for patients with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) has been recommended for years, its adoption at the population level is often limited. Objective: To make active surveillance available for patients with LRPC using a research framework and to compare patient characteristics and clinical outcomes between those who receive active surveillance vs radical treatments at diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, prospective cohort study was designed by a large multidisciplinary group of specialists and patients' representatives. The study was conducted within all 18 urology centers and 7 radiation oncology centers in the Piemonte and Valle d'Aosta Regional Oncology Network in Northwest Italy (approximate population, 4.5 million). Participants included patients with a new diagnosis of LRPC from June 2015 to December 2021. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023. Exposure: At diagnosis, all patients were informed of the available treatment options by the urologist and received an information leaflet describing the benefits and risks of active surveillance compared with active treatments, either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation treatment (RT). Patients choosing active surveillance were actively monitored with regular prostate-specific antigen testing, clinical examinations, and a rebiopsy at 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were proportion of patients choosing active surveillance or radical treatments, overall survival, and, for patients in active surveillance, treatment-free survival. Comparisons were analyzed with multivariable logistic or Cox models, considering centers as clusters. Results: A total of 852 male patients (median [IQR] age, 70 [64-74] years) were included, and 706 patients (82.9%) chose active surveillance, with an increasing trend over time; 109 patients (12.8%) chose RP, and 37 patients (4.3%) chose RT. Median (IQR) follow-up was 57 (41-76) months. Worse prostate cancer prognostic factors were negatively associated with choosing active surveillance (eg, stage T2a vs T1c: odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.93), while patients who were older (eg, age ≥75 vs <65 years: OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 1.98-9.22), had higher comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 vs 0: OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.02-3.85), underwent an independent revision of the first prostate biopsy (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.26-4.38) or underwent a multidisciplinary assessment (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.38-5.11) were more likely to choose active surveillance vs active treatment. After adjustment, center at which a patient was treated continued to be an important factor in the choice of treatment (intraclass correlation coefficient, 18.6%). No differences were detected in overall survival between active treatment and active surveillance. Treatment-free survival in the active surveillance cohort was 59.0% (95% CI, 54.8%-62.9%) at 24 months, 54.5% (95% CI, 50.2%-58.6%) at 36 months, and 47.0% (95% CI, 42.2%-51.7%) at 48 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study of patients with LRPC, a research framework at system level as well as favorable prognostic factors, a multidisciplinary approach, and an independent review of the first prostate biopsy at patient-level were positively associated with high uptake of active surveillance, a practice largely underused before this study.

A comparison among RIRS and MiniPerc for renal stones between 10 and 20 mm using thulium fiber laser (Fiber Dust): a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We performed a prospective randomized comparison among Retrograde IntraRenal Surgery (RIRS) and MiniPerc (MP) for stones between 10 and 20 mm to evaluate outcomes with the same laser device: Fiber Dust. METHODS: Patients with a single renal stone between 10 and 20 mm were randomized to RIRS (Group A) versus MP (Group B). Exclusion criteria were age < 18 or > 75, presence of acute infection, coagulation impairments, cardiovascular or pulmonary comorbidities. In both groups, the Fiber Dust laser was used. A CT scan after 3 months was performed. A negative CT scan or asymptomatic patients with stone fragments < 3 mm and a negative urinary culture were the criteria to assess the stone-free status. A statistical analysis was carried out to assess success, complication and retreatment rates and need for auxiliary treatments. RESULTS: Between January 2021 and January 2022, 186 patients were enrolled (90 in Group A and 96 in Group B). Mean stone size was 15.8 mm and 14.9 mm in Group A and B, respectively (p = 0.23). The overall stone-free rate (SFR) was 73.3% for Group A and 84.4% for Group B. A higher SFR was reached for upper calyceal stones in Group A (90.4%) lower calyceal stones in Group B (91.6%). Retreatment rate (p = 0.31) and auxiliary procedure rate (p = 0.18) were comparable. Complication rate was 5.5% and 5.2% for Groups A and B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RIRS and MP are both effective to obtain a postoperative SFR with Fiber Dust. According to the stone position one treatment is superior to the other one.

[Real-time elastography in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: personal experience]. / Ruolo dell'elastosonografia prostatica transrettale nella diagnostica per immagini del carcinoma prostatico: esperienza personale.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. In the future, a significant further increase in the incidence of prostate cancer is expected. The indication to perform a prostate biopsy is digital rectal examination suspicious for prostate cancer, total prostate specific antigen (PSA) value, free PSA/total PSA ratio, PSA density and PSA velocity, and an evidence of hypoechoic area at transrectal ultrasound scan. Unfortunately the specificity and sensibility are still poor. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the specificity and sensibility of real time elastography versus ultrasound transrectal B-mode scan. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 108 pts. having undergone TRUS-guided transrectal prostate biopsy (10 samples). The indication for biopsy is: digital rectal examination, total prostate specific antigen (PSA) value, PSA ratio, PSA density and PSA velocity suspicious for prostate cancer, and/or an evidence of hypoechoic area at transrectal ultrasound scan, and/or hard area at real-time elastography. The mean age of patients is 66.8 years, mean PSA 6.5 ng/mL, and mean ratio 16.5%. We compared the histopathological findings of needle prostate biopsies with the results of transrectal ultrasound and transrectal real-time elastography. RESULTS: 32/108 (29.6%) pts. were positive for prostate cancer (mean Gleason score 7.08), mean PSA 14 ng/mL and mean ratio 9.5%. Transrectal ultrasound scan shows a sensibility of 69% and specificity of 68%. Transrectal ultrasound scan shows a VPP of 51.4%. Transrectal ultrasound scan shows a VPN of 80.9%. Real-time elastography shows a sensibility of 56% and specificity of 85.7%. Real-time elastography shows a VPP of 60.1%. Real-time elastography shows a VPN of 83%. CONCLUSIONS: Elastography has a significantly higher specificity for the detection of prostate cancer than the conventionally used examinations including DRE and TRUS. It is a useful real-time diagnostic method because it is not invasive, and simultaneous evaluation is possible while performing TRUS.