Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Three-dimensional (3D) printed anatomic models can facilitate presurgical planning by providing surgeons with detailed knowledge of the exact location of pertinent anatomical structures. Although 3D printed anatomic models have been shown to be useful for pre-operative planning, few studies have demonstrated how these models can influence quantitative surgical metrics. OBJECTIVE:To prospectively assess whether patient-specific 3D printed prostate cancer models can improve quantitative surgical metrics in patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS:Patients with MRI-visible prostate cancer (PI-RADS V2 ≥ 3) scheduled to undergo RARP were prospectively enrolled in our IRB approved study (n = 82). Quantitative surgical metrics included the rate of positive surgical margins (PSMs), operative times, and blood loss. A qualitative Likert scale survey to assess understanding of anatomy and confidence regarding surgical approach was also implemented. RESULTS:The rate of PSMs was lower for the 3D printed model group (8.11%) compared to that with imaging only (28.6%), p = 0.128. The 3D printed model group had a 9-min reduction in operating time (213 ± 42 min vs. 222 ± 47 min) and a 5 mL reduction in average blood loss (227 ± 148 mL vs. 232 ± 114 mL). Surgeon anatomical understanding and confidence improved after reviewing the 3D printed models (3.60 ± 0.74 to 4.20 ± 0.56, p = 0.62 and 3.86 ± 0.53 to 4.20 ± 0.56, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS:3D printed prostate cancer models can positively impact quantitative patient outcomes such as PSMs, operative times, and blood loss in patients undergoing RARP.

BACKGROUND:Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy has become an increasingly common method of diagnosing prostate cancer. A previous study from our institution demonstrated that the biopsy global Grade Group (gGG, aggregate GG of all positive cores) and highest Grade Group (hGG in any core) both show substantial concordance with the Grade Group at radical prostatectomy (RPGG) while the discordance predominantly consists of upgrading in gGG and downgrading in hGG. We performed a larger cohort study focused on biopsy cases in which gGG and hGG differ, to determine their relative concordance with RPGG. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective review of radical prostatectomy specimens with prior MRI-targeted biopsies from our institution between 2016 and 2020. Separate gGG and hGG were assigned to each MRI-targeted lesion. Targeted lesions with different gGG versus hGG were segregated from those with identical gGG and hGG. The concordance of biopsy GG with RPGG was evaluated using κ coefficient analysis. RESULTS:Of the 489 lesions with MRI-targeted biopsies, 82 (17%) differed in gGG versus hGG. The gGG of 46 (56%), 33 (40%), and 3 (4%) lesions were unchanged, upgraded, and downgraded at radical prostatectomy, respectively (κ= 0.302, weighted κ = 0.334). The hGG of 24 (29%), 9 (11%), and 49 (60%) lesions were unchanged, upgraded, and downgraded at radical prostatectomy, respectively (κ = 0.040, weighted κ = 0.198). When stratified by the biopsy GG, gGG showed the highest concordance in GG2 (61%) and GG3 (54%) lesions. The hGG resulted in substantial downgrading (60%) with less optimal concordance regardless of the biopsy GG. Neither the prebiopsy prostate specific antigen level nor the PI-RADS score was predictive of upgrading of gGG. CONCLUSIONS:When gGG and hGG differ, gGG method more accurately predicts the RPGG than hGG, particularly in GG2 and GG3 lesions which comprised the majority of targeted lesions.

Introduction: We aimed to determine cancer detection rates following early repeat multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and biopsy of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), v2.1 4 and 5 regions of interest (ROI) exhibiting no clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on prior biopsy and to identify predictors for these missed csPCa. Methods: Between January 2019 and August 2020, 36 men with 38 PI-RADS 4 or 5 ROI with no evidence of csPCa (defined as Gleason grade group [GGG] >1) on prior MRI fusion target biopsy (MRFTB) + systematic biopsy (SB) were invited to participate in the present prospective study. All men underwent repeat mpMRI and persistent PI-RADS >2 ROI were advised to undergo repeat MRFTB+SB. Cancer detection rates of any and csPCa were determined. Relative risk was calculated to analyze association of baseline variables with the finding of csPCa on repeat biopsy. Results: Of the 38 initial PI-RADS 4 and 5 ROI, on followup mpMRI, 14 were downgraded to PI-RADS 1/2 and, per protocol, did not undergo repeat biopsy and; eight (33%), 12 (50%), and four (17%) were PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 respectively. Of these 24 persistently suspicious mpMRI ROI, 20 (83%) underwent repeat biopsy and six (30%), six (30%), and eight (40%) were benign, GGG 1, and GGG >1, respectively. Only prostate-specific antigen ≥10 ng/mL was a predictor for missed csPCa. Conclusions: Our prospective study supports a recommendation for early repeat mpMRI of all PI-RADS 4 or 5 ROI exhibiting no csPCa, with repeat MRFTB + SB of persistent PI-RADS >2 ROI .

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:F-Fluciclovine) PET/MRI informs the decision to perform an early repeat biopsy of PI-RADS 4/5 region of interest (ROI) exhibiting no clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on initial biopsy. METHODS:This prospective study enrolled men with at least one PI-RADS 4/5 ROI on multi-parametric MRI and no csPCa on prior biopsy defined as Gleason grade group (GGG) > 1. All men underwent an Axumin PET/MRI and only-persistent PI-RADS > 2 ROI were advised to undergo a repeat biopsy. A PET cancer suspicion score (PETCSS) was internally developed to stratify PET avid lesions according to their suspicion of harboring csPCa. The sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the PETCSS for predicting csPCa were assessed. Relative risk was calculated to analyze the association of baseline variables with csPCa on repeat biopsy. RESULTS:Thirty-eight ROI on 36 enrolled men were analyzed. Fourteen (36.8%) were downgraded to PI-RADS 1/2 and were not subjected to repeat biopsy. Thirteen (92.9%) of these downgraded scans also exhibited low-risk PETCSS. Overall, 18/22 (81.2%) subjects underwent a repeat per protocol biopsy. Of the 20 ROI subjected to repeat biopsy, eight (40%) were found to harbour csPCa. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the PETCSS were 50, 50, 40, and 60%, respectively. No predictor of csPCa was found in the risk analysis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our pilot study showed that both MRI and PET sequences have limited performance for identifying those persistently suspicious PI-RADS 4/5 ROI that are found to harbor csPCa on repeat biopsy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Timely and appropriate discharge placement for patients who have undergone radical cystectomy (RC) remains challenging. Our objective was to improve the discharge planning process by creating a machine learning model that helps to predict the need for non-home hospital discharge to a higher level of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients undergoing elective radical cystectomy for bladder cancer from 2014-2019 were identified in the ACS-NSQIP database. A gradient boosted decision tree was trained on selected predischarge variables to predict discharge location, dichotomized into home and non-home. We used threshold-moving to calibrate model predictions and evaluated model performance on a testing set using receiver operating characteristic and precision recall curves. Model performance was further examined in subgroups of interest. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS/CONCLUSIONS:A total of 11,881 patients met inclusion criteria with a mean age of 68.6 years. 10.6% of patients undergoing RC had non-home discharges. Our model predicting non-home discharge achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.80 and an average precision of 0.33. After threshold-moving, our model had a recall of 0.757 and a precision of 0.211. Top variables by importance were septic shock occurrence, ventilator-use greater than 48 hours, organ space surgical site infection and unplanned intubation. Our model shows strong performance in identifying patients who required non-home discharge to higher levels of care, outperforming commonly used clinical indices and prior work. Modern machine learning techniques may be applied to support more timely and appropriate clinical decision making.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:The goal of partial gland ablation (PGA) is to eradicate focal lesions of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) with minimal adverse impact on functional outcomes. The primary objective of this study is to characterize the performance of 18F-Fluciclovine PET imaging for detection of prostate cancer following PGA. Materials and Methods/UNASSIGNED:Subjects 2 years following primary partial gland cryoablation (PPGCA) were invited to participate in an IRB-approved study providing they met the following inclusion criteria: a single reported mpMRI region of interest (ROI) concordant with biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) < 4, no gross extra-prostatic extension on mpMRI, and no GGG > 1 or GGG 1 with a core length > 6 mm on contralateral systematic biopsy. 18F-Fluciclovine PET MRI imaging of the prostate was performed followed by in and out-of-field biopsies. Results/UNASSIGNED:Twenty-seven men who met eligibility criteria participated in the prospective study. In-field and out-of-field csPCa recurrence rate was 7.4% and 22.2%, respectively. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of mpMRI and PET imaging did not reach performance to reliably inform who should undergo prostate biopsy. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:At 2 years following PPGCA, the rate of in-field csPCa was exceedingly low indicating a limited role for imaging to inform in-field biopsy decisions. The csPCa detection rate of out-of-field recurrence was 22% which provides an opportunity for imaging to inform out-of-field biopsy decisions. Based on our findings, 18F-Fluciclovine PET MRI cannot be used to inform who should undergo out-of-field prostate biopsy at 2 years following PPGCA.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of the study was to compare the distribution of Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) scores, interreader agreement, and diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2.0 and v2.1 for transition zone (TZ) lesions. METHODS:The study included 202 lesions in 202 patients who underwent 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging showing a TZ lesion that was later biopsied with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion. Five abdominal imaging faculty reviewed T2-weighted imaging and high b value/apparent diffusion coefficient images in 2 sessions. Cases were randomized using a crossover design whereby half in the first session were reviewed using v2.0 and the other half using v2.1, and vice versa for the 2nd session. Readers provided T2-weighted imaging and DWI scores, from which PI-RADS scores were derived. RESULTS:Interreader agreement for all PI-RADS scores had κ of 0.37 (v2.0) and 0.26 (v2.1). For 4 readers, the percentage of lesions retrospectively scored PI-RADS 1 increased greater than 5% and PI-RADS 2 score decreased greater than 5% from v2.0 to v2.1. For 2 readers, the percentage scored PI-RADS 3 decreased greater than 5% and, for 2 readers, increased greater than 5%. The percentage of PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions changed less than 5% for all readers. For the 4 readers with increased frequency of PI-RADS 1 using v2.1, 4% to 16% were Gleason score ≥3 + 4 tumor. Frequency of Gleason score ≥3 + 4 in PI-RADS 3 lesions increased for 2 readers and decreased for 1 reader. Sensitivity of PI-RADS of 3 or greater for Gleason score ≥3 + 4 ranged 76% to 90% (v2.0) and 69% to 96% (v2.1). Specificity ranged 32% to 64% (v2.0) and 25% to 72% (v2.1). Positive predictive value ranged 43% to 55% (v2.0) and 41% to 58% (v2.1). Negative predictive value ranged 82% to 87% (v2.0) and 81% to 91% (v2.1). CONCLUSIONS:Poor interreader agreement and lack of improvement in diagnostic performance indicate an ongoing need to refine evaluation of TZ lesions.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:Whole gland cryoablation is a guideline-approved definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer, and is being explored for partial gland ablation. However, there is limited data regarding management of cryoablation failures. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a well-established method of primary treatment for prostate cancer. Here we review salvage SBRT after cryoablation failures. Methods and Materials/UNASSIGNED:A large database of patients treated with definitive SBRT was interrogated to identify those who underwent primary cryoablation. All patients were determined to have progressive disease based on a rising prostate specific antigen and/or postcryoablation biopsy. All patients were treated with SBRT over 5 treatment fractions using a robotic radiosurgical platform. Baseline cryoablation characteristics and pre- and posttreatment Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires were analyzed. Acute and late toxicity was evaluated using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Cancer outcomes after salvage SBRT were stratified by disease and treatment characteristics. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 51 patients were identified who underwent cryoablation followed by salvage SBRT. The majority (47%) were found to have intermediate-risk disease at the time of SBRT salvage and most commonly were treated with 3500 cGy in 5 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles. Only 1 grade 3+ toxicity was identified. Patient-reported quality of life metrics after SBRT salvage followed prior patterns observed in the de novo SBRT setting. With a median follow-up of 40 months, 76% of the cohort demonstrated disease control. Median time to prostate cancer recurrence was 57.5 months, and recurrence was predominantly seen in patients with underlying high-risk disease. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:This is the largest cohort of patients treated with any radiation therapy salvage after cryoablation and the first institution to report SBRT as a modality of salvage. Salvage SBRT after cryoablation results in low rates of high-grade toxicity, acceptable changes in patient-reported quality of life, and durable rates of long-term oncologic control.

Introduction & Objectives: Delay between prostate biopsy (PB) and pathologic diagnosis leads to a concern of inadequate sampling and repeated biopsy. Stimulated Raman Histology (SRH) is a novel microscopic technique allowing real time, label-free, high-resolution microscopic images of unprocessed, un-sectioned tissue. We evaluated the accuracy of pathologist interpretation of PB SRH as compared to traditional hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides.
Material(s) and Method(s): Men undergoing prostatectomy were included in an IRB approved prospective study. 18-gauge PB cores, taken ex vivo from prostatectomy specimen, were scanned in a SRH microscope at 20 microns depth over 10-14 minutes using two Raman shifts: 2845cm-1 and 2930cm-1, to create SRH images. The cores were then processed as per normal pathologic protocols. 16 PB containing benign/prostate cancer histology were used as a SRH training cohort for 4 GU pathologists (1, 3, 2x >15 yrs experience), who were then tested on a set of 32 PB imaged by SRH and processed by traditional H&E. Sensitivity, specificity, and concordance for PCa detection on SRH relative to a consensus H&E were assessed. With a two-sided alpha level of 5%, it was calculated 32 SRH imaged biopsies would provide 90% power to detect concordance (k).
Result(s): PB cores were imaged in 2-3 separate strips (11-21 minutes) shown in Figure 1. In identifying any cancer, pathologists achieved moderate concordance (k=0.570; p<0.001) which improved when identifying GGG 2-5 PCa only (k=0.640, p<0001; sensitivity 96.4%; specificity 58.3%). In predicting Gleason score, the concordance for each pathologist varied from poor to moderate (k range -0.163 to 0.457). After individual assessment was completed a pathology consensus conference was held for the interpretation of the SRH PB. In identifying any prostate cancer, pathologists achieved near perfect concordance (k=0.925; p<0.001; sensitivity 95.6%; specificity 100%). When evaluating SRH in a consensus conference, the group prediction of Gleason score improved to moderate concordance (k=0.470; p<0.001). (Figure Presented) (Figure Presented)
Conclusion(s): SRH produces high quality microscopic images that allow for accurate identification of PCa in real-time without need for sectioning or tissue-processing. Individual pathologist performance varied highly suggesting potential for improvement with further training. Future SRH interpretation by convolutional neural network may further enhance GGG prediction
Copyright