Owing to improvements in catheters and embolic agents, renal artery embolization (RAE) is increasingly used to treat nephrological and urological disease. RAE has become a useful adjunct to medical ...resuscitation in severe penetrating, iatrogenic or blunt renal traumatisms with active bleeding, and might avoid surgical intervention, particularly among patients that are haemodynamically stable. The role of RAE in pre-operative or palliative management of advanced malignant renal tumours remains debated; however, RAE is recommended as a first-line therapy for bleeding angiomyolipomas and can be used as a preventative treatment for angiomyolipomas at risk of bleeding. RAE represents an alternative to nephrectomy in various medical conditions, including severe uncontrolled hypertension among patients with end-stage renal disease, renal graft intolerance syndrome or autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. RAE is increasingly used to treat renal artery aneurysms or symptomatic renal arteriovenous malformations, with a low complication rate as compared with surgical alternatives. This Review highlights the potential use of RAE as an adjunct in the management of renal disease. We first compare and contrast the technical approaches of RAE associated with the various available embolization agents and then discuss the complications associated with RAE and alternative procedures.
Whether multiparametric MRI improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and avoids the need for systematic biopsy in biopsy-naive patients remains controversial. We aimed to ...investigate whether using this approach before biopsy would improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients.
In this prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study, done at 16 centres in France, we enrolled patients aged 18–75 years with prostate-specific antigen concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less, and with stage T2c or lower prostate cancer. Eligible patients had been referred for prostate multiparametric MRI before a first set of prostate biopsies, with a planned interval of less than 3 months between MRI and biopsies. An operator masked to multiparametric MRI results did a systematic biopsy by obtaining 12 systematic cores and up to two cores targeting hypoechoic lesions. In the same patient, another operator targeted up to two lesions seen on MRI with a Likert score of 3 or higher (three cores per lesion) using targeted biopsy based on multiparametric MRI findings. Patients with negative multiparametric MRI (Likert score ≤2) had systematic biopsy only. The primary outcome was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 or higher (csPCa-A), analysed in all patients who received both systematic and targeted biopsies and whose results from both were available for pathological central review, including patients who had protocol deviations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02485379, and is closed to new participants.
Between July 15, 2015, and Aug 11, 2016, we enrolled 275 patients. 24 (9%) were excluded from the analysis. 53 (21%) of 251 analysed patients had negative (Likert ≤2) multiparametric MRI. csPCa-A was detected in 94 (37%) of 251 patients. 13 (14%) of these 94 patients were diagnosed by systematic biopsy only, 19 (20%) by targeted biopsy only, and 62 (66%) by both techniques. Detection of csPCa-A by systematic biopsy (29·9%, 95% CI 24·3–36·0) and targeted biopsy (32·3%, 26·5–38·4) did not differ significantly (p=0·38). csPCa-A would have been missed in 5·2% (95% CI 2·8–8·7) of patients had systematic biopsy not been done, and in 7·6% (4·6–11·6) of patients had targeted biopsy not been done. Four grade 3 post-biopsy adverse events were reported (3 cases of prostatitis, and 1 case of urinary retention with haematuria).
There was no difference between systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy in the detection of ISUP grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer; however, this detection was improved by combining both techniques and both techniques showed substantial added value. Thus, obtaining a multiparametric MRI before biopsy in biopsy-naive patients can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer but does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy.
French National Cancer Institute.
Abstract Context There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). Objective To ...systematically review the relevant literature assessing the relative benefits and harms of PLND for oncological and non-oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for PCa. Evidence acquisition MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2015. Comparative studies evaluating no PLND, limited, standard, and (super)-extended PLND that reported oncological and non-oncological outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Evidence synthesis Overall, 66 studies recruiting a total of 275,269 patients were included (44 full-text articles and 22 conference abstracts). Oncological outcomes were addressed by 29 studies, one of which was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Non-oncological outcomes were addressed by 43 studies, three of which were RCTs. There were high risks of bias and confounding in most studies. Conflicting results emerged when comparing biochemical and clinical recurrence, while no significant differences were observed among groups for survival. Conversely, the majority of studies showed that the more extensive the PLND, the greater the adverse outcomes in terms of operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. No significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery. Conclusions Although representing the most accurate staging procedure, PLND and its extension are associated with worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes, whereas a direct therapeutic effect is still not evident from the current literature. The current poor quality of evidence indicates the need for robust and adequately powered clinical trials. Patient summary Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this article summarizes the benefits and harms of removing lymph nodes during surgery to remove the prostate because of PCa. Although the quality of the data from the studies was poor, the review suggests that lymph node removal may not have any direct benefit on cancer outcomes and may instead result in more complications. Nevertheless, the procedure remains justified because it enables accurate assessment of cancer spread.
Objective
Because prostate cancer local recurrences can be efficiently treated by salvage therapies, it becomes critical to detect them early.
Methods
The first alert is the rise of the prostate ...specific antigen (PSA) level after the post-treatment nadir, which can correspond to a distant recurrence, a local recurrence or both. This so-called biochemical failure (BF) is defined as PSA level > 0.2 ng/ml after radical prostatectomy (RP) and PSA level > nadir + 2 ng/ml after radiotherapy. There is no consensual definition of BF after cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation or brachytherapy.
Results
Local recurrences after RP are treated by radiotherapy, those after radiotherapy by RP, cryotherapy, brachytherapy or HIFU ablation. Recurrences after cryotherapy or HIFU ablation can be treated by a second session or radiotherapy. Recurrences after brachytherapy are difficult to treat. In patients with BF, MRI can detect local recurrences, whatever the initial treatment was. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI seems particularly accurate. The role of spectroscopy remains controversial. Ultrasound-based techniques are less accurate, but this may change with the advent of ultrasonic contrast media.
Conclusion
These recent advances in imaging may improve the outcome of salvage therapies (by improving patient selection and treatment targeting) and should open the way to focal salvage treatments in the near future.
Abstract Context It remains unclear whether patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can safely obviate prostate biopsy. ...Objective To systematically review the literature assessing the negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in patients with a suspicion of PCa. Evidence acquisition The Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched up to February 2016. Studies reporting prebiopsy mpMRI results using transrectal or transperineal biopsy as a reference standard were included. We further selected for meta-analysis studies with at least 10-core biopsies as the reference standard, mpMRI comprising at least T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging, positive mpMRI defined as a Prostate Imaging Reporting Data System/Likert score of ≥3/5 or ≥4/5, and results reported at patient level for the detection of overall PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer. Evidence synthesis A total of 48 studies (9613 patients) were eligible for inclusion. At patient level, the median prevalence was 50.4% (interquartile range IQR, 36.4–57.7%) for overall cancer and 32.9% (IQR, 28.1–37.2%) for csPCa. The median mpMRI NPV was 82.4% (IQR, 69.0–92.4%) for overall cancer and 88.1% (IQR, 85.7–92.3) for csPCa. NPV significantly decreased when cancer prevalence increased, for overall cancer ( r = –0.64, p < 0.0001) and csPCa ( r = –0.75, p = 0.032). Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Seven reported results for overall PCa. When the overall PCa prevalence increased from 30% to 60%, the combined NPV estimates decreased from 88% (95% confidence interval 95% CI, 77–99%) to 67% (95% CI, 56–79%) for a cut-off score of 3/5. Only one study selected for meta-analysis reported results for Gleason ≥7 cancers, with a positive biopsy rate of 29.3%. The corresponding NPV for a cut-off score of ≥3/5 was 87.9%. Conclusions The NPV of mpMRI varied greatly depending on study design, cancer prevalence, and definitions of positive mpMRI and csPCa. As cancer prevalence was highly variable among series, risk stratification of patients should be the initial step before considering prebiopsy mpMRI and defining those in whom biopsy may be omitted when the mpMRI is negative. Patient summary This systematic review examined if multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan can be used to reliably predict the absence of prostate cancer in patients suspected of having prostate cancer, thereby avoiding a prostate biopsy. The results suggest that whilst it is a promising tool, it is not accurate enough to replace prostate biopsy in such patients, mainly because its accuracy is variable and influenced by the prostate cancer risk. However, its performance can be enhanced if there were more accurate ways of determining the risk of having prostate cancer. When such tools are available, it should be possible to use an MRI scan to avoid biopsy in patients at a low risk of prostate cancer.
The optimal treatment for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains unknown.
To perform a systematic review of the existing literature on the effectiveness of the ...different primary treatment modalities for high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa. The primary oncological outcome is the development of distant metastases at ≥5 yr of follow-up. Secondary oncological outcomes are PCa-specific mortality, overall mortality, biochemical recurrence, and need for salvage treatment with ≥5 yr of follow-up. Nononcological outcomes are quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and treatment-related side effects reported.
Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials were searched. All comparative (randomized and nonrandomized) studies published between January 2000 and May 2019 with at least 50 participants in each arm were included. Studies reporting on high-risk localized PCa (International Society of Urologic Pathologists ISUP grade 4–5 Gleason score {GS} 8–10 or prostate-specific antigen PSA >20 ng/ml or ≥ cT2c) and/or locally advanced PCa (any PSA, cT3–4 or cN+, any ISUP grade/GS) or where subanalyses were performed on either group were included. The following primary local treatments were mandated: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (≥64 Gy), brachytherapy (BT), or multimodality treatment combining any of the local treatments above (±any systemic treatment). Risk of bias (RoB) and confounding factors were assessed for each study. A narrative synthesis was performed.
Overall, 90 studies met the inclusion criteria. RoB and confounding factors revealed high RoB for selection, performance, and detection bias, and low RoB for correction of initial PSA and biopsy GS. When comparing RP with EBRT, retrospective series suggested an advantage for RP, although with a low level of evidence. Both RT and RP should be seen as part of a multimodal treatment plan with possible addition of (postoperative) RT and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), respectively. High levels of evidence exist for EBRT treatment, with several randomized clinical trials showing superior outcome for adding long-term ADT or BT to EBRT. No clear cutoff can be proposed for RT dose, but higher RT doses by means of dose escalation schemes result in an improved biochemical control. Twenty studies reported data on QoL, with RP resulting mainly in genitourinary toxicity and sexual dysfunction, and EBRT in bowel problems.
Based on the results of this systematic review, both RP as part of multimodal treatment and EBRT + long-term ADT can be recommended as primary treatment in high-risk and locally advanced PCa. For high-risk PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite more grade 3 toxicity. Interestingly, for selected patients, for example, those with higher comorbidity, a shorter duration of ADT might be an option. For locally advanced PCa, EBRT + BT shows promising result but still needs further validation. In this setting, it is important that patients are aware that the offered therapy will most likely be in the context a multimodality treatment plan. In particular, if radiation is used, the combination of local with systemic treatment provides the best outcome, provided the patient is fit enough to receive both. Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options, and the likelihood of a multimodal approach including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment.
We reviewed the literature to see whether the evidence from clinical studies would tell us the best way of curing men with aggressive prostate cancer that had not spread to other parts of the body such as lymph glands or bones. Based on the results of this systematic review, there is good evidence that both surgery and radiation therapy are good treatment options, in terms of prolonging life and preserving quality of life, provided they are combined with other treatments. In the case of surgery this means including radiotherapy (RT), and in the case of RT this means either hormonal therapy or combined RT and brachytherapy.
High-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients are likely to undergo multimodality treatment. Patients should at all times be fully informed about all available options and the likelihood of a multimodal approach, including the potential side effects of both local and systemic treatment.
For high-risk localized and locally advanced PCa, both radical prostatectomy as part as multimodal therapy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) + long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) can be recommended as primary treatment.
For high-risk localized PCa, EBRT + BT can also be offered despite a less favorable toxicity profile. In selected high-risk PCa patients, a shorter duration of ADT might be considered.
Until the results of the SPCG15 trial are known, the optimal local treatment remains a matter of debate.
Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment of localized prostate cancer does not necessarily lead to clinically apparent progressive disease. To aid in prognostication, the European ...Association of Urology prostate cancer guidelines panel undertook a systematic review and successfully developed a novel BCR risk stratification system (groups with a low risk or high risk of BCR) based on disease and prostate-specific antigen characteristics.
Following treatment to cure prostate cancer, some patients can develop recurrence of disease identified via a prostate-specific antigen blood test (ie, biochemical recurrence, or BCR). However, not every man who experiences BCR develops progressive disease (symptoms or evidence of disease progression on imaging). We conducted a review of the literature and developed a classification system for predicting which patients might progress to optimize treatment decisions.
The EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guidelines panel recommends stratifying patients experiencing biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for localized prostate cancer into EAU low-risk and high-risk BCR groups. Each patient’s risk profile and life expectancy should be considered when discussing the benefits and toxicities of salvage treatments.
There is uncertainty in deferred active treatment (DAT) programmes, regarding patient selection, follow-up and monitoring, reclassification, and which outcome measures should be prioritised.
To ...develop consensus statements for all domains of DAT.
A protocol-driven, three phase study was undertaken by the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations, including the following: (1) a systematic review to describe heterogeneity across all domains; (2) a two-round Delphi survey involving a large, international panel of stakeholders, including healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients; and (3) a consensus group meeting attended by stakeholder group representatives. Robust methods regarding what constituted the consensus were strictly followed.
A total of 109 HCPs and 16 patients completed both survey rounds. Of 129 statements in the survey, consensus was achieved in 66 (51%); the rest of the statements were discussed and voted on in the consensus meeting by 32 HCPs and three patients, where consensus was achieved in additional 27 statements (43%). Overall, 93 statements (72%) achieved consensus in the project. Some uncertainties remained regarding clinically important thresholds for disease extent on biopsy in low-risk disease, and the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in determining disease stage and aggressiveness as a criterion for inclusion and exclusion.
Consensus statements and the findings are expected to guide and inform routine clinical practice and research, until higher levels of evidence emerge through prospective comparative studies and clinical trials.
We undertook a project aimed at standardising the elements of practice in active surveillance programmes for early localised prostate cancer because currently there is great variation and uncertainty regarding how best to conduct them. The project involved large numbers of healthcare practitioners and patients using a survey and face-to-face meeting, in order to achieve agreement (ie, consensus) regarding best practice, which will provide guidance to clinicians and researchers.
The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Association of Urology Section of Urological Research (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel in conjunction with partner organisations has developed comprehensive consensus statements for deferred active treatment for localised prostate cancer covering all domains, aimed at guiding and informing routine clinical practice and research.
PDF
