Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To determine how ipsilateral (ipsi) and contralateral (contra) systematic biopsies (SB) impacts detection of clinically significant versus insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) in men with unilateral MRI lesion undergoing MRI fusion target biopsy (MRF-TB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 211 cases with one unilateral MRI lesion were subjected to SB and MRF-TB. Biopsy tissue cores from the MRF-TB, ipsi-SB and contra-SB were analyzed separately. RESULTS: A direct relationship was observed between MRI suspicious score (SS) and detection of any cancer, Gleason 6 PCa and Gleason > 6 PCa. MRF-TB alone, MRF-TB + ipsi-SB and MRF-TB + contra-SB detected 64.1%, 89.1% and 76.1% of all PCa, respectively, 53.5%, 81.4% and 69.8% of Gleason 6 PCa, respectively, and 73.5%, 96.0% and 81.6% of Gleason >6 PCa, respectively. MRF-TB + ipsi-SB detected 96% of clinically significant PCa and avoided detection of 18.6% of clinically insignificant PCa. MRF-TB + contra-SB detected 81.6% of clinically significant PCa and avoided detection of 30.2% of clinically insignificant PCa. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that ipsi-SB should be added to MRF-TB as detection of clinically significant PCa increases with only a modest increase in clinically insignificant PCa detection. Contra-SB in this setting may be deferred since it primarily detects clinically insignificant PCa.

CONTEXT: Focal therapy of prostate cancer has been proposed as an alternative to whole-gland treatments. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence regarding sources of energy employed in focal therapy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Embase and Medline (PubMed) were searched from 1996 to October 31, 2015 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Ongoing trials were selected from electronic registries. The stage of assessment of each source of energy was determined using the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study recommendations. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty-seven articles reporting on 3230 patients undergoing focal therapy were selected. Thirteen reported on high-intensity focused ultrasound, 11 on cryotherapy, three on photodynamic therapy, four on laser interstitial thermotherapy, two on brachytherapy, three on irreversible electroporation, and one on radiofrequency. High-intensity focused ultrasound, cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, and brachytherapy have been assessed in up to Stage 2b studies. Laser interstitial thermotherapy and irreversible electroporation have been evaluated in up to Stage 2a studies. Radiofrequency has been evaluated in one Stage 1 study. Median follow-up varied between 4 mo and 61 mo, and the median rate of serious adverse events ranged between 0% and 10.6%. Pad-free leak-free continence and potency were obtained in 83.3-100% and 81.5-100%, respectively. In series with intention to treat, the median rate of significant and insignificant disease at control biopsy varied between 0% and 13.4% and 5.1% and 45.9%, respectively. The main limitations were the length of follow-up, the absence of a comparator arm, and study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Focal therapy has been evaluated using seven sources of energy in single-arm retrospective and prospective development studies up to Stage 2b. Focal therapy seems to have a minor impact on quality of life and genito-urinary function. Oncological effectiveness is yet to be defined against standard of care. PATIENT SUMMARY: Seven sources of energy have been employed to selectively ablate discrete areas of prostate cancer. There is high evidence that focal therapy is safe and has low detrimental impact on continence and potency. The oncological outcome has yet to be evaluated against standard of care.

PURPOSE: To compare image quality and diagnostic performance for detecting local recurrence (LR) of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (RP) between standard dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a high spatiotemporal resolution, continuously acquired Golden-angle RAdial Sparse Parallel acquisition employing compressed sensing reconstruction ("GRASP"). METHODS: A search was conducted for prostate MRI examinations performed in patients with PSA >/=0.2 ng/mL after RP in whom follow-up evaluation allowed classification as positive (>/=50% PSA reduction after pelvic radiation or positive biopsy) or negative (<50% PSA reduction after pelvic radiation; spontaneous PSA normalization) for LR, yielding 13 patients with standard DCE (11 LR+) and 12 with GRASP (10 LR+). Standard DCE had voxel size 3.0 x 1.9 x 1.9 mm and temporal resolution 5.5 s. GRASP had voxel size 1.0 x 1.1 x 1.1 cm and was retrospectively reconstructed at 2.3 s resolution. Two radiologists evaluated DCE sequences for image quality measures (1-5 scale) and the presence of LR. RESULTS: GRASP achieved higher scores than standard DCE from both readers (p < 0.001-0.136) for anatomic clarity (R1: 4.4 +/- 0.8 vs. 2.8 +/- 0.67 R2: 4.8 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.2 +/- 0.6), sharpness (3.6 +/- 0.9 vs. 2.5 +/- 0.7; 4.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.6 +/- 0.5), confidence in interpretation (3.8 +/- 0.8 vs. 3.1 +/- 0.9; 3.8 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.1 +/- 1.2), and conspicuity of detected lesions (4.7 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.8 +/- 1.1; 4.5 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.8 +/- 1.0). For detecting LR, GRASP also achieved higher sensitivity (70% vs. 36%; 80% vs. 45%), specificity (R1 and R2: 100% vs. 50%), and accuracy (75% vs. 38%; 83% vs. 46%) for both readers. CONCLUSION: Although requiring larger studies, high spatiotemporal resolution GRASP achieved substantially better image quality and diagnostic performance than standard DCE for detecting LR in patients with elevated PSA after prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a combination of PCA3 and MRI suspicion score (mSS) could further optimize detection of prostate cancer on MRF-TB among men with no previous history of biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 187 men presenting to our institution between 6/12 and 8/14 who underwent multiparametric MRI and PCA3 prior to MRF-TB. Biopsy results, stratified by biopsy indication and PCA3 score, were recorded. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to model the association of PCA3 and mSS with cancer detection on MRF-TB. RESULTS: PCA3 is associated with cancer detection on MRF-TB for men with no prior biopsies (AUC = 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.76). Using a cutoff of >/=35, PCA3 was associated with cancer risk among men with mSS 2-3 (p=0.004), but not among those with mSS 4-5 (p=0.340). The interaction of PCA3 and mSS demonstrated significantly higher discrimination for cancer than mSS alone (AUC: 0.83 vs. 0.79, p=0.0434). CONCLUSIONS: Urinary PCA3 is associated with mSS and the detection of cancer on MRF-TB for men with no prior biopsies. PCA3 notably demonstrates a high negative predictive value among mSS 2-3. However, in the case of high suspicion mpMRI, PCA3 is not associated with cancer detection on MRF-TB adding little to cancer diagnosis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the utility of PCA3 in predicting cancer among men with normal mpMRI.

The surgical robot, a costly technology for treatment of prostate cancer with equivocal marginal benefit, rapidly diffused into clinical practice. We sought to evaluate the role of teaching in the early adoption phase of the surgical robot. Teaching hospitals were the primary early adopters: data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project showed that surgical robots were acquired by 45.5% of major teaching, 18.0% of minor teaching and 8.0% of non-teaching hospitals during the early adoption phase. However, teaching hospital faculty produced little comparative effectiveness research: By 2008, only 24 published studies compared robotic prostatectomy outcomes to those of conventional techniques. Just ten of these studies (41.7%) were more than minimally powered, and only six (25%) involved cross-institutional collaborations. In adopting the surgical robot, teaching hospitals fulfilled their mission to innovate, but failed to generate corresponding scientific evidence.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Whereas open radical prostatectomy is performed extraperitoneally, minimally invasive radical prostatectomy is typically performed within the peritoneal cavity. Our objective was to determine whether minimally invasive radical prostatectomy is associated with an increased risk of small bowel obstruction compared with open radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS:In the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database, we identified 14,147 men found to have prostate cancer from 2000 to 2008 treated by open (n = 10,954) or minimally invasive (n = 3193) radical prostatectomy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the impact of surgical approach on the diagnosis of small bowel obstruction, as well as the need for lysis of adhesions and exploratory laparotomy. RESULTS:During a median follow-up of 45 and 76 months, respectively, the cumulative incidence of small bowel obstruction was 3.7% for minimally invasive and 5.3% for open radical prostatectomy (p = 0.0005). Lysis of adhesions occurred in 1.1% of minimally invasive and 2.0% of open prostatectomy patients (p = 0.0003). On multivariable analysis, there was no significant difference between minimally invasive and open prostatectomy with respect to small bowel obstruction (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.90, 1.52, p = 0.25) or lysis of adhesions (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.50, 1.40, p = 0.57). Limitations of the study include the retrospective design and use of administrative claims data. CONCLUSIONS:Relative to open radical prostatectomy, minimally invasive radical prostatectomy is not associated with an increased risk of postoperative small bowel obstruction and lysis of adhesions.

Over the last 2 decades the evolution of alpha-blockers for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)/benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has been to preserve effectiveness, improve tolerability, and eliminate dose titration. Today, alpha-blockers represent the first-line treatment of most men with BPH whereby the primary objective is relief from bothersome LUTS.