Background and Objective The literature lacks knowledge about information preferences and decision-making in young prostate cancer patients. This study provides insight into information sources consulted and factors dictating treatment decision-making in young prostate cancer patients. Methods Subjects were identified from pathology consult service of a National Center of Excellence. Questionnaires were mailed to 986 men, under 50 years of age, diagnosed with Gleason score 6 prostate cancer between 2001 and 2005. Results Four hundred ninety-three men responded. The most common primary therapies were surgery 397 (81.4%), radiation 52 (10.7%), and active surveillance (AS) 26 (5.3%). Participants with at least some college education (P = 0.003) or annual income >$100,000 (P = 0.003) were more likely to consult three or more doctors. Amongst all treatments, “doctor's recommendation” was the most influential information source, although relatively less important in the AS group. Internet was the second most frequent information source. Participants with higher education (P = 0.0003) and higher income (P = 0.002) considered sexual function more important while making a treatment choice. Only 2% of the men preferred a passive role in the decision-making. Informed decision-making was preferred more by patients who chose radiation and AS while shared decision-making was preferred more by surgery patients (P < 0.05). The majority (89%) of the respondents did not regret their decision. No difference in satisfaction levels was found between different treatment modalities. Conclusions This study provides insight into information sources consulted, such as the greater internet use, and various factors dictating treatment decision-making in young prostate cancer patients. There was an overall very high satisfaction rate regardless of the therapy chosen.

No abstract

Our results demonstrate that saturation of the index lesion significantly decreases the risk of upgrading on radical prostatectomy by minimizing the impact of tumor heterogeneity.

Purpose Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and fusion biopsy (FBx) detect more high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and less low-risk PCa than systematic biopsy (SBx). However, there remains a small subset of patients where SBx captures higher grade disease than FBx. We aim to identify potential mechanisms for failure of FBx biopsy in detection of clinically significant (CS) PCa. Methods We reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing mpMRI followed by FBx and SBx from 2007-2014. In patients disease upgraded to CS disease (Gleason ≥ 7) by SBx over FBx, independent re-review of MR imaging, archived biopsy imaging, and whole mount pathology, as well as needle coordinate mapping were conducted. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors for upgrading by SBx. Results Disease upgrading based on SBx over FBx occurred in 135/1003 (13.5%) patients, of which only 62 (6.2%) were to intermediate (Gleason=7) [N=51, 5.1%] or high risk PCa (Gleason≥8) [N=11, 1.1%]. On multivariate analysis, lower PSA (p <0.001), higher MRI prostate volume (p <0.001), and lower number of target cores (p=0.001) were predictors of upgrading by SBx. Main mechanisms for under-grading by FBx included mpMRI reader oversight, presence of MR invisible cancer, FBx technique error, and intra-lesion Gleason heterogeneity. Conclusions MRI and FBx rarely misses CS PCa, as only 62/1003 (6.2%) cases were upgraded to CS disease by SBx. Imaging and biopsy techniques are continually refined and further studies will help to clarify mechanisms of FBx failure and patient populations which benefit from SBx in addition to FBx.

5004 Background: HLRCC is a familial cancer syndrome associated with a type 2 papillary RCC (pRCC) variant. HLRCC is caused by germline mutations in the gene for the Krebs cycle enzyme fumarate hydratase (FH). FH inactivation results in VHL-independent upregulation of hypoxia inducible factor, a reliance on aerobic glycolysis, and activation of the NRF2 pathway, features also shared by some sporadic pRCC tumors. We hypothesized that the metabolic alterations underlying these tumors would be susceptible to targeted therapy with a combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib. Methods: Patients with advanced pRCC were eligible to enroll on this phase II study. To enrich for patients with FH deficiency, those with 1) HLRCC and 2) sporadic pRCC were enrolled into parallel, independent cohorts. All patients received bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks and erlotinib 150 mg orally daily. Patients who had received no more than two agents targeting the VEGFR pathway were included. Patients remained on treatment until unacceptable toxicity or progression. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and duration of response. Results: A total of 83 patients with pRCC, including 42 in the HLRCC cohort and 41 in the sporadic cohort were enrolled on study. The majority of patients were IMDC intermediate risk (53/83, 64%) and 27 (33%) had at least one prior treatment. The ORR was 51% (42/83; 95% CI, 40 – 61) in all patients, 64% (27/42; 95% CI, 49 – 77) in the HLRCC cohort, and 37% (15/41; 95% CI, 24 – 52) in the sporadic cohort. The median PFS was 14.2 months (95% CI, 11.4 – 18.6) in all patients, 21.1 months (95% CI, 15.6 – 26.6) in the HLRCC cohort, and 8.7 months (95% CI, 6.4 – 12.6) in the sporadic cohort. The majority of treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) were grade 1 or 2 with the most common being acneiform rash (92%), diarrhea (77%), proteinuria (71%), and dry skin (61%). Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 47% of patients, including hypertension (34%) and proteinuria (13%), with one patient (1.2%) with a grade 5 GI hemorrhage possibly related to bevacizumab. Conclusions: The combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib is well tolerated and is associated with encouraging activity in advanced pRCC, particularly in patients with FH deficient tumors. This is the first and largest prospective study in HLRCC and provides the basis for considering bevacizumab and erlotinib as a preferred option in a patient population that has no widely accepted standard. Clinical trial information: NCT01130519 .

Prostate biopsy is the gold standard diagnostic technique for the detection of prostate cancer. Patient selection for prostate biopsy is complex and is influenced by emerging use of prebiopsy imaging. The introduction of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy has clear advantages over the historical standard of care. There are several biopsy techniques currently utilized with unique advantages and disadvantages. We review and summarize the current body of literature pertaining to when and how a prostate biopsy should be performed. We discuss current recommendations regarding patient selection for biopsy and discuss future directions regarding prebiopsy imaging. We offer a description of the MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy technique and a comparison of many of the currently available fusion software platforms. Articles pertaining to the title were obtained via PubMed index search with relevant keywords supplemented with personal collection of related publications. Prostate biopsy should be considered for patients with gross digital rectal exam (DRE) abnormality, patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) greater than 4 ng/ml, and concomitant risk factors for prostate cancer or patients with lesions identified on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 2 (PI-RADS2) score of 4 or 5. MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy has demonstrated advantages in cancer detection when compared with TRUS-guided biopsy. There are currently several fusion software platforms available with a variety of biopsy approaches. Future efforts should detail the role of prebiopsy imaging as a triage tool for prostate biopsy. Consensus should be sought regarding the preferred modality of fusion biopsy. Additional data describing each fusion software platform would enable a more rigorous comparison of platform sensitivities.

In the past 9 years, there has been significant improvement in the accuracy of Fbx. Our results show that after an early learning period, Fbx detected higher rates of CS cancer and lower rates of clinically insignificant cancer than Sbx. Software advances allowed for even greater detection of CS disease.

We demonstrate that TCL is an independent predictor of+pEPE, +pLN, and BCR. If validated, this imaging biomarker may facilitate and inform patient counseling and decision-making.