Predicting Biopsy Outcomes During Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: External Validation of the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study Risk Calculators in Five Large Active Surveillance Cohorts

Aggressive Prostate Cancer in Patients Treated with Active Surveillance

Active surveillance has emerged as a promising approach for managing low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PC), with the aim of minimizing overtreatment and maintaining the quality of life. However, concerns remain about identifying "aggressive prostate cancer" within the active surveillance cohort, which refers to cancers with a higher potential for progression. Previous studies are predictors of aggressive PC during active surveillance. To address this, a personalized risk-based follow-up approach that integrates clinical data, biomarkers, and genetic factors using risk calculators was proposed. This approach enables an efficient risk assessment and the early detection of disease progression, minimizes unnecessary interventions, and improves patient management and outcomes. As active surveillance indications expand, the importance of identifying aggressive PC through a personalized risk-based follow-up is expected to increase.

Combination of fusion guided multiparametric MRI-transrectal US with systematic biopsy of the prostate for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: A prospective single-center study

PURPOSE

To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of fusion guided multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy versus systematic biopsy of the prostate in patients with suspicion of prostate cancer.

METHODS

A total of 185 patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions or higher underwent fusion guided targeted and systematic prostate biopsy. Histology of samples was correlated with PI-RADS score and biopsy method for each patient.

RESULTS

A total of 81/185 (43.8%) cases positive for cancer were detected; 23/81 (28.4%) cases with clinically insignificant prostate cancer-insPCa and 58/81 (71.6%) cases with clinically significant prostate cancer-csPCa. There was a statistically significant difference in the overall detection of adenocarcinomas between methods (p = .035, McNemar test). Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference in the detection of insPCa between the two methods (p = .004, McNemar test). Systematic biopsy detected 13 patients with insPCa more (14.4%) than the targeted biopsy method. However, there is no statistical difference in the detection rate of csPCa between the two methods (p = 1, McNemar test). When both techniques were combined more cases of csPCa were detected.

CONCLUSION

The combined implementation of fusion-guided targeted mpMRI-TRUS and systematic biopsy of the prostate provides higher detection number of csPCa, compared to each method alone. The potential of fusion-guided mpMRI-TRUS biopsy of the prostate needs to be further assessed since each method has its limitations; therefore, systematic prostate biopsy still plays an important role in clinical practice.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Past, Current, and Future Trends

In response to the rising incidence of indolent, low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in the 1990s, active surveillance (AS) emerged as a treatment modality to combat overtreatment by delaying or avoiding unnecessary definitive treatment and its associated morbidity. AS consists of regular monitoring of PSA levels, digital rectal exams, medical imaging, and prostate biopsies, so that definitive treatment is only offered when deemed necessary. This paper provides a narrative review of the evolution of AS since its inception and an overview of its current landscape and challenges. Although AS was initially only performed in a study setting, numerous studies have provided evidence for the safety and efficacy of AS which has led guidelines to recommend it as a treatment option for patients with low-risk PCa. For intermediate-risk disease, AS appears to be a viable option for those with favourable clinical characteristics. Over the years, the inclusion criteria, follow-up schedule and triggers for definitive treatment have evolved based on the results of various large AS cohorts. Given the burdensome nature of repeat biopsies, risk-based dynamic monitoring may further reduce overtreatment by avoiding repeat biopsies in selected patients.

The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance in active surveillance of a low-risk prostate cancer cohort from clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) is considered a suitable management practice for those patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). At present, however, the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in AS protocols has not yet been clearly established.

OUTCOMES

To determine the role of mpMRI and its ability to detect significant prostate cancer (SigPCa) in PCa patients enrolled in AS protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

There were 229 patients enrolled in an AS protocol between 2011 and 2020 at Reina Sofía University Hospital. MRI interpretation was based on PIRADS v.1 or v.2/2.1 classification. Demographics, clinical, and analytical data were collected and analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for mpMRI in different scenarios. We defined SigPCa and reclassification/progression as a Gleason score (GS) ≥ 3 + 4, a clinical stage ≥T2b, or an increase in PCa volume. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to estimate progression-free survival time.

RESULTS

Median age was 69.02 (±7.73) at diagnosis, with a 0.15 (±0.08) PSA density (PSAD). Eighty-six patients were reclassified after confirmatory biopsy, with a suspicious mpMRI an indication for a clear reclassification and risk-predictor factor in disease progression (p < 0.05). During follow-up, 46 patients were changed from AS to active treatment mainly due to disease progression. Ninety patients underwent ≥2mpMRI during follow-up, with a median follow-up of 29 (15-49) months. Thirty-four patients had a baseline suspicious mpMRI (at diagnostic or confirmatory biopsy): 14 patients with a PIRADS 3 and 20 patients with ≥PIRADS 4. From 14 patients with a PIRADS 3 baseline mpMRI, 29% progressed radiologically, with a 50% progression rate versus 10% (1/10 patients) for those with similar or decreased mpMRI risk. Of the 56 patients with a non-suspicious baseline mpMRI (PIRADS < 2), 14 patients (25%) had an increased degree of radiological suspicion, with a detection rate of SigPCa of 29%. The mpMRI NPV during follow-up was 0.91.

CONCLUSION

A suspicious mpMRI increases the reclassification and disease progression risk during follow-up and plays an important role in monitoring biopsies. In addition, a high NPV at mpMRI follow-up can help to decrease the need to monitor biopsies during AS.

Development and External Validation of the STRATified CANcer Surveillance (STRATCANS) Multivariable Model for Predicting Progression in Men with Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer Starting Active Surveillance

For men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, we aimed to develop and validate a model to predict the risk of progression on active surveillance (AS), which could inform more personalised AS strategies. In total, 883 men from 3 European centres were used for model development and internal validation, and 151 men from a fourth European centre were used for external validation. Men with Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) 1-2 disease at diagnosis were eligible. The endpoint was progression to the composite endpoint of CPG3 disease or worse (≥CPG3). Model performance at 4 years was evaluated through discrimination (C-index), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. The final multivariable model incorporated prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Grade Group, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score (Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) or Likert), and prostate volume. Calibration and discrimination were good in both internal validation (C-index 0.742, 95% CI 0.694-0.793) and external validation (C-index 0.845, 95% CI 0.712-0.958). In decision curve analysis, the model offered net benefit compared to a 'follow-all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.08 and ≥0.04 in development and external validation, respectively. In conclusion, our model demonstrated good accuracy and clinical utility in predicting the progression on AS at 4 years post-diagnosis. Men with lower risk predictions could subsequently be offered less-intense surveillance. Further external validation in larger cohorts is now required.

Risk of progression following a negative biopsy in prostate cancer active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Currently, follow-up protocols are applied equally to men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) regardless of findings at their initial follow-up biopsy. To determine whether less intensive follow-up is suitable following negative biopsy findings, we assessed the risk of converting to active treatment, any subsequent upgrading, volume progression (>33% positive cores), and serious upgrading (grade group >2) for negative compared with positive findings on initial follow-up biopsy.

METHODS

13,161 men from 24 centres participating in the Global Action Plan Active Surveillance Prostate Cancer [GAP3] consortium database, with baseline grade group ≤2, PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, cT-stage 1-2, diagnosed after 1995, and ≥1 follow-up biopsy, were included in this study. Risk of converting to treatment was assessed using multivariable mixed-effects survival regression. Odds of volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading were assessed using mix-effects binary logistic regression for men with ≥2 surveillance biopsies.

RESULTS

27% of the cohort (n = 3590) had no evidence of PCa at their initial biopsy. Over 50% of subsequent biopsies in this group were also negative. A negative initial biopsy was associated with lower risk of conversion (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.49), subsequent upgrading (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.45-0.62) and serious upgrading (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59-92). Radiological progression was not assessed due to limited imaging data.

CONCLUSION

Despite heterogeneity in follow-up schedules, findings from this global study indicated reduced risk of converting to treatment, volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading among men whose initial biopsy findings were negative compared with positive. Given the low risk of progression and high likelihood of further negative biopsy findings, consideration should be given to decreasing follow-up intensity for this group to reduce unnecessary invasive biopsies.

Developing machine learning algorithms for dynamic estimation of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer

Active Surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer is a management option that continually monitors early disease and considers intervention if progression occurs. A robust method to incorporate “live” updates of progression risk during follow-up has hitherto been lacking. To address this, we developed a deep learning-based individualised longitudinal survival model using Dynamic-DeepHit-Lite (DDHL) that learns data-driven distribution of time-to-event outcomes. Further refining outputs, we used a reinforcement learning approach (Actor-Critic) for temporal predictive clustering (AC-TPC) to discover groups with similar time-to-event outcomes to support clinical utility. We applied these methods to data from 585 men on AS with longitudinal and comprehensive follow-up (median 4.4 years). Time-dependent C-indices and Brier scores were calculated and compared to Cox regression and landmarking methods. Both Cox and DDHL models including only baseline variables showed comparable C-indices but the DDHL model performance improved with additional follow-up data. With 3 years of data collection and 3 years follow-up the DDHL model had a C-index of 0.79 (±0.11) compared to 0.70 (±0.15) for landmarking Cox and 0.67 (±0.09) for baseline Cox only. Model calibration was good across all models tested. The AC-TPC method further discovered 4 distinct outcome-related temporal clusters with distinct progression trajectories. Those in the lowest risk cluster had negligible progression risk while those in the highest cluster had a 50% risk of progression by 5 years. In summary, we report a novel machine learning approach to inform personalised follow-up during active surveillance which improves predictive power with increasing data input over time.

Treatment in the absence of disease reclassification among men on active surveillance for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Maintaining men on active surveillance for prostate cancer can be challenging. Although most men who eventually undergo treatment have experienced clinical progression, a smaller subset elects treatment in the absence of disease reclassification. This study sought to understand factors associated with treatment in a large, contemporary, prospective cohort.

METHODS

This study identified 1789 men in the Canary Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Study cohort enrolled as of 2020 with a median follow-up of 5.6 years. Clinical and demographic data as well as information on patient-reported quality of life and urinary symptoms were used in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to identify factors associated with the time to treatment RESULTS: Within 4 years of their diagnosis, 33% of men (95% confidence interval [CI], 30%-35%) underwent treatment, and 10% (95% CI, 9%-12%) were treated in the absence of reclassification. The most significant factor associated with any treatment was an increasing Gleason grade group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 14.5; 95% CI, 11.7-17.9). Urinary quality-of-life scores were associated with treatment without reclassification (aHR comparing "mostly dissatisfied/terrible" with "pleased/mixed," 2.65; 95% CI, 1.54-4.59). In a subset analysis (n = 692), married men, compared with single men, were more likely to undergo treatment in the absence of reclassification (aHR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.04-6.66).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of men with prostate cancer undergo treatment in the absence of clinical changes in their cancers, and quality-of-life changes and marital status may be important factors in these decisions.

LAY SUMMARY

This analysis of men on active surveillance for prostate cancer shows that approximately 1 in 10 men will decide to be treated within 4 years of their diagnosis even if their cancer is stable. These choices may be related in part to quality-or-life or spousal concerns.

Risk Projection for Time-to-event Outcome Leveraging Summary Statistics With Source Individual-level Data

Predicting risks of chronic diseases has become increasingly important in clinical practice. When a prediction model is developed in a cohort, there is a great interest to apply the model to other cohorts. Due to potential discrepancy in baseline disease incidences between different cohorts and shifts in patient composition, the risk predicted by the model built in the source cohort often under- or over-estimates the risk in a new cohort. In this article, we assume the relative risks of predictors are the same between the two cohorts, and propose a novel weighted estimating equation approach to re-calibrating the projected risk for the targeted population through updating the baseline risk. The recalibration leverages the knowledge about survival probabilities for the disease of interest and competing events, and summary information of risk factors from the target population. We establish the consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed estimators. Extensive simulation demonstrate that the proposed estimators are robust, even if the risk factor distributions differ between the source and target populations, and gain efficiency if they are the same, as long as the information from the target is precise. The method is illustrated with a recalibration of colorectal cancer prediction model.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer

Many men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer can postpone definitive treatment without raising their risk of metastasis or death from disease. Active surveillance (AS) is a method of monitoring select men, with the option of switching to active treatment upon signs of progression, thereby avoiding the well-known side-effects of surgery and radiotherapy. This review analyzes the data from long-running AS cohorts to determine the safety and efficacy of AS. We conducted a narrative review of recently published data, including 14 articles from 13 AS cohorts. The cohorts used varying inclusion criteria, with reported differences in clinical T stage and Gleason Score (Grade Group), among other features. Some studies (n=5) limited their cohorts to low-risk patients, while others (n=8) also included intermediate-risk patients. The heterogeneity of the cohorts produced mixed results, with the risk of prostate cancer metastasis ranging from 0.1–1.0% at 10 years and the risk of prostate cancer mortality ranging from 0–1.9% at 10 years. However, the majority of studies reported risks of less than 0.5% at 10 years for both metastasis and death. For most cohorts, half of men remained untreated for 5–10 years, with estimates ranging from 37% receiving active treatment in the Toronto cohort to 73% in the Prostate Cancer Research International AS (PRIAS) study. Current data do not support the use of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to avoid scheduled biopsy. Taken together, the data collected from these AS cohorts suggests that AS is a safe approach for men with low-grade prostate cancer and some men with intermediate risk disease. AS should be more broadly implemented for eligible patients to avoid the decreases in quality of life from undergoing active treatment. Studies expanding the inclusion criteria and further defining a subset of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer who might safely benefit from AS are needed to assess the long-term outcomes of using AS in intermediate-risk groups.

Active surveillance for prostate cancer: selection criteria, guidelines, and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance (AS) has been widely adopted for the management of men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, there is still a lack of consensus surrounding the optimal approach for monitoring men in AS protocols. While conservative management aims to reduce the burden of invasive testing without compromising oncological safety, inadequate assessment can result in misclassification and unintended over- or undertreatment, leading to increased patient morbidity, cost, and undue risk. No universally accepted AS protocol exists, although numerous strategies have been developed in an attempt to optimize the management of clinically localized disease. Variability in selection criteria, reclassification, triggers for definitive treatment, and follow-up exists between guidelines and institutions for AS. In this review, we summarize the landscape of AS by providing an overview of the existing AS protocols, guidelines, and their published outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic search was performed to identify representative studies and guidelines pertaining to AS selection criteria and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

While AS is a safe and increasingly utilized treatment modality for lower-risk forms of PCa, ongoing research is needed to optimize patient selection as well as surveillance protocols along with improved implementation across practices. Further, assessment of companion risk assessment tools, such as mpMRI and tissue-based biomarkers, is also needed and will require rigorous prospective study.

A first step towards a global nomogram to predict disease progression for men on active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Signs of disease progression (28%) and conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression (13%) are the main reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) in men with localised prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to develop a nomogram to predict disease progression in these patients.

METHODS

As a first step in the development of a nomogram, using data from Movembers' GAP3 Consortium (n=14,380), we assessed heterogeneity between centres in terms of risk of disease progression. We started with assessment of baseline hazards for disease progression based on grouping of centres according to follow-up protocols [high: yearly; intermediate: ~2 yearly; and low: at year 1, 4 & 7 (i.e., PRIAS)]. We conducted cause-specific random effect Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate risk of disease progression by centre in each group.

RESULTS

Disease progression rates varied substantially between centres [median hazard ratio (MHR): 2.5]. After adjustment for various clinical factors (age, year of diagnosis, Gleason grade group, number of positive cores and PSA), substantial heterogeneity in disease progression remained between centres.

CONCLUSIONS

When combining worldwide data on AS, we noted unexplained differences of disease progression rate even after adjustment for various clinical factors. This suggests that when developing a global nomogram, local adjustments for differences in risk of disease progression and competing outcomes such as conversion to active treatment need to be considered.

Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of osteopontin expression in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Evaluation of the feasibility for osteopontin (OPN) to serve as a biomarker in the prognosis and clinical-pathological features of prostate cancer (PCA) patients.

Methods: The original publications related to OPN and PCA were comprehensively searched in the online databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure up to August 2019. Results were analyzed by Revman 5.3 and Stata 12.0.

Results: A total of 21 studies were included in the analysis and the result showed that the positive OPN expression group had a lower overall survival than the negative expression group (univariate: hazards ratio (HR) = 2.32, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) [1.74, 3.10], multivariate: HR = 2.41, 95% CI [1.63, 3.57]) and a lower biochemical relapse-free survival than the negative group (univariate: HR = 1.42, 95% CI [0.92, 2.17], multivariate: HR = 1.61, 95% CI [1.39, 1.87]). In addition, there was a higher expression level of OPN in PCA tissues than in normal prostate tissues (OR = 46.55, 95% CI [12.85, 168.59], P<0.00001) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tissues (OR = 11.07, 95% CI [3.43, 35.75], P<0.0001). Moreover, OPN positive expression was also related to high Gleason score (OR = 2.64, 95% CI [1.49, 4.70], P=0.0009), high TNM stage (OR = 3.15, 95% CI [1.60, 6.20, P=0.0009), high Whitmore–Jewett stage (OR = 2.53, 95% CI [1.06, 6.03], P=0.04), high lymph node (OR = 3.69, 95% CI [1.88, 7.23], P=0.0001), and distant metastasis (OR = 8.10, 95% CI [2.94, 22.35], P=0.01). There was no difference observed in the differentiation of PCA (OR = 1.79, 95% CI [0.39, 8.33], P=0.46).

Conclusion: OPN could be recognized as a promising diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for PCA patients.

Role of Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging before Confirmatory Biopsy in Assessing the Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression during Active Surveillance

Objective

To evaluate the impact of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) before confirmatory prostate biopsy in patients under active surveillance (AS).

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study included 170 patients with Gleason grade 6 prostate cancer initially enrolled in an AS program between 2011 and 2019. Prostate mpMRI was performed using a 1.5 tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging system with a 16-channel phased-array body coil. The protocol included T1-weighted, T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging sequences. Uroradiology reports generated by a specialist were based on prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 2. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed based on regression models.

Results

The reclassification rate at confirmatory biopsy was higher in patients with suspicious lesions on mpMRI (PI-RADS score ≥ 3) (n = 47) than in patients with non-suspicious mpMRIs (n = 61) and who did not undergo mpMRIs (n = 62) (66%, 26.2%, and 24.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, presence of a suspicious mpMRI finding (PI-RADS score ≥ 3) was associated (adjusted odds ratio: 4.72) with the risk of reclassification at confirmatory biopsy after adjusting for the main variables (age, prostate-specific antigen density, number of positive cores, number of previous biopsies, and clinical stage). Presence of a suspicious mpMRI finding (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.62) was also associated with the risk of progression to active treatment during the follow-up.

Conclusion

Inclusion of mpMRI before the confirmatory biopsy is useful to stratify the risk of reclassification during the biopsy as well as to evaluate the risk of progression to active treatment during follow-up.

Negative first follow-up prostate biopsy on active surveillance is associated with decreased risk of upgrading, suspicion of progression and converting to active treatment

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk of disease progression and conversion to active treatment following a negative biopsy while on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men on an AS programme at a single tertiary hospital (London, UK) between 2003 and 2018 with confirmed low-intermediate-risk PCa, Gleason Grade Group <3, clinical stage <T3 and a diagnostic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of <20 ng/mL. This cohort included men diagnosed by transrectal ultrasonography guided (12-14 cores) or transperineal (median 32 cores) biopsy. Multivariate Cox hazards regression analysis was undertaken to determine (i) risk of upgrading, (ii) clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and (iii) transitioning to active treatment. Suspicion of disease progression was defined as any biopsy upgrading, >30% positive cores, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Likert score >3/T3 or PSA level of >20 ng/mL. Conversion to treatment included radical or hormonal treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 460 eligible patients, 23% had negative follow-up biopsy findings. The median follow-up was 62 months, with one to two repeat biopsies and two MRIs per patient during that period. Negative biopsy findings at first repeat biopsy were associated with decreased risk of converting to active treatment (hazard ration [HR] 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.37; P < 0.001), suspicion of disease progression (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.94; P = 0.029), and upgrading (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99; P = 0.047). Data are limited by fewer men with multiple follow-up biopsies.

CONCLUSION

A negative biopsy finding at the first scheduled follow-up biopsy among men on AS for PCa was strongly associated with decreased risk of subsequent upgrading, clinical or radiological suspicion of disease progression, and conversion to active treatment. A less intense surveillance protocol should be considered for this cohort of patients.

The Movember Prostate Cancer Landscape Analysis: an assessment of unmet research needs

Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous cancer with widely varying levels of morbidity and mortality. Approaches to prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, surveillance, treatment and management differ around the world. To identify the highest priority research needs across the prostate cancer biomedical research domain, Movember conducted a landscape analysis with the aim of maximizing the effect of future research investment through global collaborative efforts and partnerships. A global Landscape Analysis Committee (LAC) was established to act as an independent group of experts across urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, translational research, health economics and patient advocacy. Men with prostate cancer and thought leaders from a variety of disciplines provided a range of key insights through a range of interviews. Insights were prioritized against predetermined criteria to understand the areas of greatest unmet need. From these efforts, 17 research needs in prostate cancer were agreed on and prioritized, and 3 received the maximum prioritization score by the LAC: first, to establish more sensitive and specific tests to improve disease screening and diagnosis; second, to develop indicators to better stratify low-risk prostate cancer for determining which men should go on active surveillance; and third, to integrate companion diagnostics into randomized clinical trials to enable prediction of treatment response. On the basis of the findings from the landscape analysis, Movember will now have an increased focus on addressing the specific research needs that have been identified, with particular investment in research efforts that reduce disease progression and lead to improved therapies for advanced prostate cancer.

The Movember global Landscape Analysis Committee (LAC) was established to act as an independent group of experts across urology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, translational research, health economics and patient advocacy to identify the highest priority research needs across the prostate cancer biomedical research domain. Findings from the landscape analysis illustrate the research priorities in prostate cancer and will enable Movember to focus on specific needs, with particular investment in research to reduce disease progression and improve therapies for advanced prostate cancer.

Multiparametric MRI Versus SelectMDx Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant PCa in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance

BACKGROUND/AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the urinary SelectMDx test in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men enrolled in an active surveillance (AS) protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From July 2015 to July 2018, 125 men with very low-risk PCa were enrolled in the AS protocol; all patients underwent confirmatory transperineal saturation biopsy (SPBx). In the presence of PI-RADS score ≥3, a targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy was added to SPBx. Post-digital rectal examination urine was collected in 45/125 (36%) patients before SPBx; the genetic urine analysis was performed using a biomarker-based risk score model, the SelectMDx, that measured mRNA levels of distal-less homeobox 1 (DLX1) and homeobox C6 (HOXC6).

RESULTS

A total of 9/45 (20%) patients were reclassified as csPCa (7 cases=Grade Group 2; 2 cases=Grade Group 3); sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI vs. SelectMDx in the diagnosis of csPCa were equal to 66.6 vs. 55.6%, 87.7 vs. 65.8%, 54.5 vs. 27.8%, 92.3 vs. 87%, 84.9 vs. 70.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

SPBx combined with MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy significantly outperformed the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx (70.3%) in the diagnosis of csPCa in men enrolled in AS.