Reviewer #4: The authors are still failing to take the problem of heterogeneity seriously. The latest response was "well, yes, the results are all over the place, but most results are pretty good". First off, it is not at all clear to this reviewer that a negative predictive value of 85%, the threshold used by the authors, is acceptable. Would most patients be happy to be told that they only have a 15% risk of high-grade cancer, so not to worry about it? That is approximately the risk for a PSA of 10. How many urologists would argue against giving a biopsy to a man with a PSA of 10?Second, the point about heterogeneity is absolutely not to find out where the majority of results lie. For instance, if this was a meta-analysis of complication risk after abortion, and there was gross heterogeneity, with most clinics having very low rates and a few having very high rates, I'm pretty sure the conclusion wouldn't be only that "abortion is a safe procedure". More likely, there would be something about there being some unsafe clinics, and then an analysis to determine the characteristics of those clinics (e.g. solo practice) or a call for further research to determine why some clinics have poor outcomes. The current paper reads as if the authors came up with the conclusion first and then went through the motions of reporting forest plots and I2 statistics and so on. The conclusion that "Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is an accurate test for ruling-out clinically significant prostate cancer" is simply not an appropriate reflection of the data presented by the authors.Formatted: Font: Bold Commented [AL1]: I know we'd already done it but we don't need to point that out to AV. Hopefully he'll think we've now spotted the wisdom of his words and made the change requested. Don't want to give him any reason to dig his heals in.

ObjectiveTo explore ongoing symptoms, unmet needs, psychological wellbeing, self-efficacy and overall health status in survivors of prostate cancer. Patients and MethodsAn invitation to participate in a postal questionnaire survey was sent to 546 men, diagnosed with prostate cancer 9-24 months previously at two UK cancer centres. The study group comprised men who had been subject to a range of treatments: surgery, radiotherapy, hormone therapy and active surveillance. The questionnaire included measures of prostate-related quality of life (Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite 26-item version, EPIC-26); unmet needs (Supportive Care Needs Survey 34-item version, SCNS-SF34); anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), self-efficacy (modified Self-efficacy Scale), health status (EuroQol 5D, EQ-5D) and satisfaction with care (questions developed for this study). A single reminder was sent to non-responders after 3 weeks. Data were analysed by age, co-morbidities, and treatment group. ResultsIn all, 316 men completed questionnaires (64.1% response rate). Overall satisfaction with follow-up care was high, but was lower for psychosocial than physical aspects of care. Urinary, bowel, and sexual functioning was reported as a moderate/big problem in the last month for 15.2% (n = 48), 5.1% (n = 16), and 36.5% (n = 105) men, respectively. The most commonly reported moderate/high unmet needs related to changes in sexual feelings/ relationships, managing fear of recurrence/uncertainty, and concerns about the worries of significant others. It was found that 17% of men (51/307) reported potentially moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety and 10.2% (32/308) reported moderate-to-severe levels of depression. The presence of problematic side-effects was associated with higher psychological morbidity, poorer selfefficacy, greater unmet needs, and poorer overall health status. ConclusionWhile some men report relatively few problems after prostate cancer treatment, this study highlights important physical and psycho-social issues for a significant minority of survivors of prostate cancer. Strategies for identifying those men with ongoing problems, alongside new interventions and models of care, tailored to individual needs, are needed to improve quality of life.

MRI-based transperineal biopsy performed at high-volume tertiary care centres with a significant experience of prostate mpMRI and image-guided targeted biopsies yielded high detection rates of Gleason score 7-10 cancer. Prostate biopsies may not be needed for men with low PSAD and an unsuspicious MRI. In patients with high probability lesions, combined targeted and systematic biopsies are recommended.

contributed equally to the present study. Objectives• To define terms and processes and agree on a minimum dataset in relation to transperineal prostate biopsy procedures and enhanced prostate diagnostics.• To identify the need for further evaluation and establish a collaborative research practice. Patients and Methods• A 19-member multidisciplinary panel rated 66 items for their appropriateness and their definition to be incorporated into the international databank using the Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. • The item list was developed from interviews conducted with healthcare professionals from urology, radiology, pathology and engineering. Results• The panel agreed on 56 items that were appropriate to be incorporated into a prospective database.• In total, 10 items were uncertain and were omitted. These items were within the categories: definitions (n = 2), imaging (n = 1), surgical protocols (n = 2) and histology (n = 5). Conclusions• The components of a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsy have been defined. • This provides an opportunity for multicentre collaborative data analysis and technique development.• The findings of the present study will facilitate prospective studies into the application and outcome of transperineal prostate biopsies.

No abstract

Our consensus statements demonstrate a set of criteria that are required for the practical dissemination of consistently high-quality prostate mpMRI as a diagnostic test before biopsy in men at risk.

Findings suggest a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention in primary care is feasible, acceptable and potentially useful to prostate cancer survivors.

ObjectivesTo determine the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) during the learning curve of radiologists using MRI targeted, transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) guided transperineal fusion biopsy (MTTP) for validation. Patients and MethodsProspective data on 340 men who underwent mpMRI (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI) followed by MTTP prostate biopsy, was collected according to Ginsburg Study Group and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy standards. MRI data were reported by two experienced radiologists and scored on a Likert scale. Biopsies were performed by consultant urologists not 'blinded' to the MRI result and men had both targeted and systematic sector biopsies, which were reviewed by a dedicated uropathologist. The cohorts were divided into groups representing five consecutive time intervals in the study. Sensitivity and specificity of positive MRI reports, prostate cancer detection by positive MRI, distribution of significant Gleason score and negative MRI with false negative for prostate cancer were calculated. Data were sequentially analysed and the learning curve was determined by comparing the first and last group. ResultsWe detected a positive mpMRI in 64 patients from Group A (91%) and 52 patients from Group E (74%). The prostate cancer detection rate on mpMRI increased from 42% (27/64) in Group A to 81% (42/52) in Group E (P < 0.001). The prostate cancer detection rate by targeted biopsy increased from 27% (17/64) in Group A to 63% (33/52) in Group E (P < 0.001). The negative predictive value of MRI for significant cancer (>Gleason 3+3) was 88.9% in Group E compared with 66.6% in Group A. ConclusionWe demonstrate an improvement in detection of prostate cancer for MRI reporting over time, suggesting a learning curve for the technique. With an improved negative predictive value for significant cancer, decision for biopsy should be based on patient/surgeon factors and risk attributes alongside the MRI findings.