Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogeneous disease that lends itself toward numerous therapeutic options depending on its risk stratification. One of the greatest challenges in PCa urologic practice is to select patients who should be referred for biopsy and, for those patients who are diagnosed with cancer, to differentiate between patients with indolent disease from those with an unfavorable prognosis and, to determine ideal patient management and avoid unnecessary interventions. Accordingly, there is a growing body of literature reporting immunohistochemical studies with the objective of determining a prostate cancer prognosis. Among the most frequent biomarkers studied are Ki-67, p53, PTEN, MYC, and ERG. Based on these findings, we systematically reviewed articles that assessed the role of these main prognostic markers in prostate cancer.Methods: Consistent with PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic literature search throughout the Web of Science and PubMed Medline databases. We considered all types of studies evaluating the role of Ki-67, p53, PTEN, MYC, and ERG immunohistochemical analysis in prostate cancer until July 2017.Results: We identified 361 articles, 44 of which were summarized in this review. Diagnostically, no single immunohistochemical marker was able to define a tumor as benign or malignant. Prognostically, Ki-67, p53, and MYC were related to the tumor grade given by Gleason score and to the tumor stage (higher levels related to higher tumor grade). Furthermore, Ki-67 was also related to higher PSA levels, shorter disease-free intervals and shorter tumor-specific survival; the latter was also related to p53. The loss of PTEN protein expression showed a higher association with biochemical recurrence and with a worse prognosis, beyond that predicted by the Gleason score and tumor stage. ERG staining also showed a strong association with biochemical recurrence.Conclusion: There are several studies relating immunohistochemical markers with clinical-laboratorial outcomes in prostate cancer, the most frequent being Ki-67, p53, ERG, PTEN, and MYC. However, none of these markers have been validated by literary consensus to be routinely applied in medical practice.

No abstract

Prostate cancer presents itself in a heterogeneous way with both aggressive and indolent forms. Despite the controversy surrounding its use, prostate-specific antigen screening ultimately leads to a greater number of diagnosed patients. One of the biggest challenges in clinical practice is to select the right patients for biopsy and, among diagnosed patients, to differentiate tumors with an indolent course from those with an unfavorable prognosis, in order to determine the best therapeutic decision for each case, avoiding unnecessary interventions. Currently, several types of biomarkers are available for clinical use in patients with prostate cancer, which include blood-based (prostate-specific antigen, Prostate Health Index®, 4K score®); urine sample-based (PCA3, SelectMDx®, ExoDx Prostate IntelliScore®); and biopsy, transurethral resection, or radical prostatectomy tissue-based (ConfirmMDx®, Oncotype®, Prolaris®, Decipher®). The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current state of evidence and to highlight recent advances in the evaluation and diagnosis of prostate cancer, with emphasis on biomarkers related to diagnosis and to prognostic evaluation of localized prostate cancer.

Purpose: Ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging (US-MRI) fusion biopsy (FB) improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to compare the Gleason upgrading (GU) rates and the concordance of the Gleason scores in the biopsy versus final pathology after surgery in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) systematic random biopsies (SRB) versus US-MRI FB for PCa. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of data that were collected prospectively from January 2011 to June 2016 from patients who underwent prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. The study cohort was divided into two groups: US-MRI FB (Group A) and TRUS SRB (Group B). US-MRI FB was performed in patients with a previous MRI with a focal lesion with a Likert score ≥3; otherwise, a TRUS SRB was performed. Results: In total, 73 men underwent US-MRI FB, and 89 underwent TRUS SRB. The GU rate was higher in Group B (31.5% vs. 16.4%; p=0.027). According to the Gleason grade pattern, GU was higher in Group B than in Group A (40.4% vs. 23.3%; p=0.020). Analyses of the Gleason grading patterns showed that Gleason scores 3+4 presented less GU in Group A (24.1% vs. 52.6%; p=0.043). The Bland-Altman plot analysis showed a higher bias in Group B than in Group A (-0.27 [-1.40 to 0.86] vs. −0.01 [-1.42 to 1.39]). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor of GU was the use of TRUS SRB (2.64 [1.11 – 6.28]; p=0.024). Conclusions: US-MRI FB appears to be related to a decrease in GU rate and an increase in concordance between biopsy and final pathology compared to TRUS SRB, suggesting that performing US-MRI FB leads to greater accuracy of diagnosis and better treatment decisions.

Purpose of review The shift in the diagnostic algorithm for prostate cancer to early imaging with mpMRI has resulted in many patients being diagnosed with small volume, apparently unilateral, clinically significant cancers. In these patients, a minimally invasive, nonmorbid intervention is appealing. The aim of this study was to review data reported within the last 2 years on focal therapy and partial gland ablation for organ-confined prostate cancer. Recent findings High-intensity focal ultrasound, focal cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, irreversible electroporation and focal laser ablation, have been used as treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer treatment. The reported oncologic outcomes vary widely and makes comparisons challenging. All the focal therapies report low rates of complications, and high rates of continence and erectile function preservation. The most common adverse events are hematuria, urinary retention and urinary tract infections. During this period, the initial results of several new technologies including MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation were published. Summary Focal therapy and partial gland ablation for organ-confined prostate cancer is an option for patients with intermediate-risk disease because of its low complication profile and preservation of QOL. Trials comparing the outcome of different focal therapy technologies have not been carried out, and the existing evidence does not point to one approach being clearly superior to others. Long-term oncologic outcome is lacking. Despite this, for men with unilateral intermediate-risk prostate cancer whose disease is often relatively indolent, focal therapy is an appealing option.

Context Currently, standard treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer (MPCa) is androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Recent studies suggested that local treatment of MPCa is related to increase of survival of those patients, as observed in other tumors.Objective To evaluate the impact of local treatment on overall survival and cancer specific survival in 3 and 5 years in patients with MPCa.Materials and Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of population studies published at PubMed, Scielo, Lilacs, Cochrane and EMBASE databases until June 2016. Several large cohorts and Post-Roc studies were included, that evaluated patients with MPCa submitted to local treatment (LT) using radiotherapy (RDT), surgery (RP) or brachytherapy (BCT) or not submitted to local treatment (NLT).Results34.338 patients were analyzed in six included papers, 31.653 submitted to NLT and 2.685 to LT. Overall survival in three years was significantly higher in patients submitted to LT versus NLT (64.2% vs. 44.5%; RD 0.19, 95% CI, 0.17-0.21; p<0.00001; I2=0%), as well as in five years (51.9% vs. 23.6%; RD 0.30, 95% CI, 0.11-0.49; p<0.00001; I2=97%). Sensitive analysis according to type of local treatment showed that surgery (78.2% and 45.0%; RD 0.31, 95% CI, 0.26-0.35; p<0.00001; I2=50%) and radiotherapy (60.4% and 44.5%; RD 0.17, 95% CI, 0.12-0.22; p<0.00001; I2=67%) presented better outcomes.ConclusionLT using RDT, RP or BCT seems to significantly improve overall survival and cancer-specific survival of patients with metastatic prostatic cancer. Prospective and randomized studies must be performed in order to confirm our results.

In meta-analysis of the available randomized trials on moderate HRT versus CRT for prostate cancer, acute and late GU toxicity were similar for both treatment schemes. While HRT was associated with higher acute GI toxicity, late toxicity was similar.

Background:Low-dose aspirin use has been correlated with an increased risk of bleeding and overall complications in surgical and invasive diagnostic procedures. In this review, our aim was to analyze the current literature on whether robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is feasible and safe in patients taking low-dose aspirin perioperatively.Methods:A systematic review was performed identifying a total of 767 studies, published between January 2000 and September 2017, with five of these studies meeting the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, totalizing 1481 patients underwent RARP. Patients were divided into two groups: taking aspirin (group A) and those not taking aspirin (group B) perioperatively.Results:There were no significant differences between groups in the overall [group A 10.7% versus group B 15.7%, risk ratio (RR) 0.83; p = 0.45; I2 = 0%] or major complication rates (group A 1% versus group B 3%, RR 0.98; p = 0.98; I² = 0%), rate of cardiovascular events (group A 1.4% and group B 0.5%, RR 2.06; p = 0.24; I2 = 9%), blood loss (group A 278 ml versus group B 307 ml, SMD −0.12; p = 0.91; I2 = 96%), or hospital length of stay [group A 4 days (3–5) and group B 4 days (3–4), SMD −0.09; p = 0.52; I² = 0%]. There was a slightly higher blood-transfusion rate in group A (2.6%) versus group B (1.6%) (RR, 5.05; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%).Conclusion:Continued aspirin use in the perioperative period does not correlate with an increase in surgical morbidity, blood loss, or hospital length of stay. There was a slightly higher blood-transfusion rate in patients taking low-dose aspirin (group A) perioperatively.