Objectives
To assess upgrading rates in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) after serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).
Methods
We conducted a ...retrospective analysis of 558 patients. Five different criteria for mpMRI progression were used: 1) a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) score increase; 2) a lesion size increase; 3) an extraprostatic extension score increase; 4) overall mpMRI progression; and 5) the number of criteria met for mpMRI progression (0 vs 1 vs 2–3). In addition, two definitions of PCa upgrading were evaluated: 1) International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (ISUP GG) ≥2 with >10% of pattern 4 and 2) ISUP GG ≥ 3. Estimated annual percent changes methodology was used to show the temporal trends of mpMRI progression criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI progression criteria were also analysed. Multivariable logistic regression models tested PCa upgrading rates.
Results
Lower rates over time for all mpMRI progression criteria were observed. The NPV of serial mpMRI scans ranged from 90.5% to 93.5% (ISUP GG≥2 with >10% of pattern 4 PCa upgrading) and from 98% to 99% (ISUP GG≥3 PCa upgrading), depending on the criteria used for mpMRI progression. A prostate‐specific antigen density (PSAD) threshold of 0.15 ng/mL/mL was used to substratify those patients who would be able to skip a prostate biopsy. In multivariable logistic regression models assessing PCa upgrading rates, all five mpMRI progression criteria achieved independent predictor status.
Conclusion
During AS, approximately 27% of patients experience mpMRI progression at first repeat MRI. However, the rates of mpMRI progression decrease over time at subsequent mpMRI scans. Patients with stable mpMRI findings and with PSAD < 0.15 ng/mL/mL could safely skip surveillance biopsies. Conversely, patients who experience mpMRI progression should undergo a prostate biopsy.
Background: To investigate the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on the diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using an ...Italian multi-institutional database of TURBT patients with high-risk urothelial NMIBC between January 2019 and February 2021, followed by Re-TURBT and/or adjuvant intravesical BCG. Results: A total of 2591 patients from 27 institutions with primary TURBT were included. Of these, 1534 (59.2%) and 1056 (40.8%) underwent TURBT before and during the COVID-19 outbreak, respectively. Time between diagnosis and TURBT was significantly longer during the COVID-19 period (65 vs. 52 days, p = 0.002). One thousand and sixty-six patients (41.1%) received Re-TURBT, 604 (56.7%) during the pre-COVID-19. The median time to secondary resection was significantly longer during the COVID-19 period (55 vs. 48 days, p < 0.0001). A total of 977 patients underwent adjuvant intravesical therapy after primary or secondary resection, with a similar distribution across the two groups (n = 453, 86% vs. n = 388, 86.2%). However, the proportion of the patients who underwent maintenance significantly differed (79.5% vs. 60.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic represented an unprecedented challenge to our health system. Our study did not show significant differences in TURBT quality. However, a delay in treatment schedule and disease management was observed. Investigation of the oncological impacts of those differences should be advocated.
PDF