Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Residual Prostate Cancer Following Irreversible Electroporation-A Multicenter Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate monitoring following focal treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) is paramount for timely salvage treatment or retreatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to detect residual PCa in the short-term follow-up of focal treatment with irreversible electroporation (IRE) using transperineal or transrectal template ± targeted biopsies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective international multicenter study of men with biopsy-proven PCa, treated with focal IRE, and followed by mpMRI (index-test) and template biopsies (reference-test) between February 2013 and January 2021, was conducted. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI were calculated for in- and outfield residual disease based on two definitions of significant PCa: University College London (UCL) 1-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) ≥3 or ISUP ≥1 with maximum cancer core length (MCCL) ≥6 mm, and UCL2-ISUP ≥2 or ISUP ≥1 with MCCL ≥4 mm. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 303 patients from five focal therapy centers were treated with primary IRE. The final analysis was performed on 217 men (median age 67, median prostate-specific antigen 6.2, 81% ISUP 2/3) who underwent both mpMRI and template biopsies. Multiparametric MRI missed 38/57 (67%) positive biopsy locations (UCL1) in 22 patients. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mpMRI to detect whole gland residual disease (UCL1) were 43.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28-59), 80.9% (95% CI: 75-86), 33.3% (95% CI: 21-47), and 86.7% (95% CI: 81-91), respectively. Based on UCL2, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 35.8% (95% CI: 25-48), 82.0% (95% CI: 75-88), 47.1% (95% CI: 34-61), and 74.1% (95% CI: 67-80), respectively. Limitations are the retrospective nature and short follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI to detect residual clinically significant PCa following IRE was low. Follow-up template biopsies should be performed, regardless of mpMRI results. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect residual prostate cancer after treatment with irreversible electroporation. The accuracy of MRI is insufficient, and we emphasize the importance of confirmatory prostate biopsies.

Outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy after initial irreversible electroporation treatment for recurrent prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate: (i) safety, (ii) feasibility, and medium-term (iii) oncological and (iv) functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) for recurrent localised prostate cancer (PCa) following initial focal therapy using irreversible electroporation (IRE). PATIENTS AND METHODS: An international, multicentre and retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients that underwent sRP for recurrent localised PCa after initial primary IRE treatment. Data were reported on (i) surgical complications, (ii) feasibility of sRP reported by surgeons, (iii) time interval between IRE and sRP and pathology results, and (iv) urinary continence, erectile function, and quality of life. RESULTS: In four participating centres, a total of 39 patients with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age 64 (60-67) years were identified. No serious adverse events occurred during or following sRP and surgery was deemed feasible without difficulties. The median (IQR) time to recurrence following IRE was 14.3 (9.1-38.8) months. Pathology results showed localised disease in 21 patients (53.8%) and locally-advanced disease in 18 (46.2%). Positive surgical margins (PSMs) were observed in 10 patients (25.6%), of which six (15.4%) had significant PSMs. A persistent detectable prostate-specific antigen level was found in one case after sRP, caused by metastatic disease. One patient had a biochemical recurrence 6 months after sRP. These two cases, together with a PSM case, required additional therapy after sRP. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 17.7 (11.8-26.4) months, urinary continence and erectile function were preserved in 34 (94.4%) and 18 patients (52.9%), respectively, while quality of life remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage RP is safe and feasible for patients with recurrent localised PCa following initial IRE treatment. The medium-term oncological and functional outcomes are similar to primary RP. Strict patient selection for focal therapy and standardised follow-up is needed as some patients developed high-grade disease.

Evaluation of Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Strictures after the Introduction of Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion: Results from a Large Tertiary Referral Center.

PURPOSE: Benign ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures following radical cystectomy are a critical complication. The incidence is highly dependent on study design, surgical technique and surgeon experience. We studied the incidence of ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures after open vs robot-assisted radical cystectomy with an intracorporeal urinary diversion, and determined the influence of the introduction of robot-assisted radical cystectomy in our clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, single center, cohort study was performed between January 2012 and December 2017 in all patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine which patient or disease-specific factors were associated with development of ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures. RESULTS: Of 279 patients, 192 (69%) underwent open radical cystectomy and 87 (31%) underwent robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion. In total, 47/279 patients (17%) developed ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures after a median of 3.0 months (95% CI 2.4-3.7). The difference in incidence of ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures was statistically significant between open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (13% vs 25%, p <0.001). On multivariate analysis, only surgical technique (open vs robot-assisted radical cystectomy) was independently associated with development of ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures (p=0.004). There was a peak incidence of ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures after robot-assisted radical cystectomy of 47% during the first year after introduction of the robot-assisted procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion can result in an initial peak incidence of strictures, highlighting the importance of surgeon experience and the presence of a learning curve. Nonetheless, after experience has been gained, our results show that patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion are still more likely to develop ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures compared to those undergoing open radical cystectomy.

Preoperative frailty and outcome in patients undergoing radical cystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of preoperative frailty screening in predicting postoperative severe complications and 1-year mortality in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort single-centre study in patients undergoing RC from September 2016 to December 2017. Preoperative frailty screening was implemented as standard care and was used to guide shared decision-making during multidisciplinary team meetings. Frailty screening consisted of validated tools to assess physical, mental and social frailty. Patients were considered frail when having two or more frailty characteristics. The primary endpoint was the composite of a severe complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade III-V) within 30 days and 1-year all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints included any complication (Clavien-Dindo II-V), length of stay, readmission within 30 days, and all-cause mortality. Logistic regression analysis and the concordance statistic (c-statistic) were used to describe the association and predictive value of preoperative frailty screening. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients were included; 39 (61.9%) were considered frail. Preoperative frailty was associated with a seven-fold increased risk of a severe complication or death 1 year after RC [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 7.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-31.8; 22 patients]. Compared to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and Charlson Comorbidity Index, frailty showed the best model performance (Nagelkerke R2 0.20) and discriminative ability(c-statistic 0.72, P < 0.01) for the primary endpoint. After adding frailty to the conventional ASA risk score, the c-statistic improved by 11% (P < 0.01). Overall survival was significantly worse in frail patients (23.2 months, 95% CI 18.7-30.1) vs non-frail patients (32.9 months, 95% CI 30.0-35.9; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Frail patients undergoing RC are at high risk of postoperative adverse outcomes including death. Preoperative frailty screening improves preoperative risk stratification and may be used to guide patient selection for RC.

Health-related quality of life in I-125 prostate brachytherapy patients treated with and without volume-reducing hormone therapy: results of a short-term prospective study.

PURPOSE: This study describes the differences in short-term effects of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in I-125 prostate brachytherapy patients who were treated with and without volume-reducing hormone therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prostate cancer patients (N = 312) filled out questionnaires on HRQOL (European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC-QLQ]-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-PR25) before treatment and 6 weeks and 3 months after treatment. HRQOL was compared between the two groups: Patients who were receiving brachytherapy (n = 233) and patients who were receiving brachytherapy with volume-reducing hormone therapy (n = 79). Duration of androgen ablation was 9 months, starting 3 months before I-125 implantation. RESULTS: After treatment, patients reported significant and clinically relevant decreased scores on the following subscales: Global health status, role functioning, social functioning, pain, insomnia, bowel symptoms and functioning, and treatment-related functions, regardless of the therapy they received. Results showed that prostate cancer patients receiving brachytherapy with volume-reducing hormone therapy also experienced lower treatment-related functions and lower sexual function. Significant time by treatment interaction effects were found for treatment-related functions. The subscale treatment-related functions was the only scale that showed a difference over time, between treatments, and time by treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in HRQOL between brachytherapy and brachytherapy with volume-reducing hormone therapy are small; they both decrease HRQOL and increase treatment-related problems. A long-term prospective study on long-term effects on HRQOL is needed to obtain a more comprehensive view of the consequences of a specific treatment modality over time. Our results can help to identify the problems patients face after brachytherapy with or without hormone therapy; these problems deserve additional attention during the period of recovery.

Dosimetric comparison of interactive planned and dynamic dose calculated prostate seed brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetrical results of an interactive planning procedure and a procedure based on dynamic dose calculation for permanent prostate brachytherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 6/2000 and 11/2005, 510 patients underwent (125)I implants for T1-T2 prostate cancer. Before 4/2003, 187 patients were treated using an interactive technique that included needle updating. After that period, 323 patients were treated with a more refined dynamic technique that included constant updating of the deposited seed position. The comparison is based on postimplant dose - volume parameters such as the V(100) and d(90) for the target, V(100)(r) for the rectum and d(10)(u) for the urethra. Furthermore, the target volume ratios (TVR identical with V(100)(body)/V(100)), and the homogeneity indices (HI identical with [V(100)-V(150)]/V(100)) were calculated as additional quality parameters. RESULTS: The dose outside the target volume was significantly reduced, the V(100)(r) decreased from 1.4 cm(3) for the interactive technique to 0.6 cm(3) for the dynamic technique. Similarly the mean TVR reduced from 1.66 to 1.44. In addition, the mean V(100) increased from 92% for the interactive procedure to 95% for the dynamic procedure. More importantly, the percentage of patients with a V(100) < 80% reduced from 5% to 1%. A slight decline was observed with regard to the d(10)(u) (136% vs. 140%) and the HI (0.58 vs. 0.51). CONCLUSION: The dynamic implant procedure resulted in improved implants. Almost ideal dose coverage was achieved, while minimizing the dose outside the prostate.

Positron emission tomography in the initial staging of esophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of positron emission tomography (PET) compared with computed tomography (CT) in the initial staging of esophageal cancer. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: Tertiary care veterans hospital. PATIENTS: Patients with newly diagnosed esophageal cancers from January 1996 through May 2001 who underwent both CT and PET scanning within 4 weeks were included in the study (n = 24). Only patients who underwent pathological or radiographic follow-up were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of CT and PET were determined based on a criterion standard of pathological staging in 16 patients (67%) and follow-up imaging in 8 patients (33%). RESULTS: For staging regional lymph node involvement, CT and PET scans showed no statistically significant difference in sensitivity (57% and 71%, respectively) and specificity (71% and 86%, respectively). For detection of metastatic disease, CT and PET showed no significant difference in sensitivity (83% and 67%, respectively) and specificity (75% and 92%, respectively). There was no significant difference in clinical decision making when the results of both tests were discordant. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the 2 imaging modalities in the initial staging of esophageal cancer. The CT scan was a sensitive indicator of distant metastases, whereas PET was more specific. It is unclear what additional role PET scanning should have in the initial screening of patients.