BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy approaches are superior to traditional systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx). The optimal number of biopsy cores to be obtained per lesion identified on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) images, however, remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incremental value of additional biopsy cores in an MRI-targeted \"in-bore\"-biopsy (MRI-Bx) setting.
METHODS: Two hundred and forty-five patients, who underwent MRI-Bx between June 2014 and September 2021, were included in this retrospective single-center analysis. All lesions were biopsied with at least five biopsy cores and cumulative detection rates for any cancer (PCa) as well as detection rates of clinically significant cancers (csPCa) were calculated for each sequentially labeled biopsy core. The cumulative per-core detection rates are presented as whole numbers and as proportion of the maximum detection rate reached, when all biopsy cores were considered. CsPCa was defined as Gleason Score (GS) ≥ 7 (3 + 4).
RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-two of 245 Patients (53.9%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and csPCa was found in 64 (26.1%) patients. The first biopsy core revealed csPCa/ PCa in 76.6% (49/64)/ 81.8% (108/132) of cases. The second, third and fourth core found csPCa/ PCa not detected by previous cores in 10.9% (7/64)/ 8.3% (11/132), 7.8% (5/64)/ 5.3% (7/132) and 3.1% (2/64)/ 3% (4/132) of cases, respectively. Obtaining one or more cores beyond the fourth biopsy core resulted in an increase in detection rate of 1.6% (1/64)/ 1.5% (2/132).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that obtaining five cores per lesion maximized detection rates. If, however, future research should establish a clear link between the incidence of serious complications and the number of biopsy cores obtained, a three-core biopsy might suffice as our results suggest that about 95% of all csPCa are detected by the first three cores.

BACKGROUND: Many people struggle with the choice in a series of processes, from prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis to treatment. We investigated the degree of regret after the prostate biopsy (PBx) and relevant factors in patients recommended for biopsy for suspected PCa.
METHODS: From 06/2020 to 05/2022, 198 people who performed PBx at three institutions were enrolled and analyzed through a questionnaire before and after biopsy. Before the biopsy, a questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the sociodemographic information, anxiety scale, and health literacy, and after PBx, another questionnaire was conducted to evaluate the decision regret scale. For patients diagnosed as PCa after biopsy, a questionnaire was conducted when additional tests were performed at PCa staging work-up.
RESULTS: 190 patients answered the questionnaire before and after PBx. The mean age was 66.2 ± 7.8 years. Overall, 5.5% of men regretted biopsy, but there was no significant difference between groups according to the PCa presence. Multivariate analysis, to identify predictors for regret, revealed that the case when physicians did not properly explain what the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test was like and what PSA elevation means (OR 20.57, [95% CI 2.45-172.70], p = 0.005), low media literacy (OR 10.01, [95% CI 1.09-92.29], p = 0.042), and when nobody to rely on (OR 8.49, [95% CI 1.66-43.34], p = 0.010) were significantly related.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall regret related to PBx was low. Decision regret was more significantly related to media literacy rather than to educational level. For patients with relatively low media literacy and fewer people to rely on in case of serious diseases, more careful attention and counseling on PBx, including a well-informed explanation on PSA test, is helpful.

BACKGROUND: To define the smallest prostate needle biopsy (PNB) template necessary for accurate tissue diagnosis in men with markedly elevated PSA while decreasing procedural morbidity.
METHODS: We performed a chart review of 80 men presenting with a newly elevated PSA > 100 ng/mL who underwent biopsy (PNB or metastatic site). For patients who underwent a full 12-core biopsy, simulated templates of 2- to 10-cores were generated by randomly drawing subsets of biopsies from their full-template findings. Templates were iterated to randomize core location and generate theoretical smaller template outcomes. Simulated biopsy results were compared to full-template findings to determine accuracy to maximal Grade Group (GG) diagnosis.
RESULTS: Amongst those that underwent PNB, 93% had GG 4 or 5 disease. Twenty-two (40%) underwent a full 12-core biopsy, 20 (37%) a 6-core biopsy, and only 8 (15%) had fewer than six biopsy cores sampled at our hospital. Simulated templates with 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-cores correctly diagnosed prostate cancer in all patients, and accurately identified the maximal GG in 82%, 91%, 95%, and 97% of patients, respectively. The biopsy locations most likely to detect maximal GG were medial mid and base sites bilaterally. A 4-core template of these sites would have accurately detected the maximal GG in 95% of patients relative to a full 12-core template.
CONCLUSIONS: In men presenting with PSA > 100 ng/mL, decreasing from a 12-core to a 4-core prostate biopsy template results in universal cancer detection and minimal under-grading while theoretically decreasing procedural morbidity and cost.

OBJECTIVE: Prostate fusion biopsy, an innovative imaging modality for diagnosing prostate cancer, presents certain challenges for patients including discomfort and emotional distress, leading to nonadherence to treatment and follow-ups. To inform clinicians and offer pain relief alternatives to patients, this review delves into the risk factors for increased pain and modern management options to alleviate pain during prostate biopsy.
RESULTS: Individual responses to pain vary, and the overall experience of pain during a prostate biopsy has been contributed to numerous factors such as patient age, prostate volume, previous biopsy experience, and more. As a result, several strategies aim to mitigate pain during in-office procedures. Notably, techniques including pharmacological analgesics, hand holding, heating pads, entertainment/virtual reality, and distraction have shown significant efficacy. Existing studies explore risk factors influencing pain intensity during prostate biopsy and effective pain management strategies. This review consolidates available information to guide clinicians in enhancing patient comfort and thus, encourage surveillance adherence.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a diagnosis of cancer is a profound and often very stressful experience. Few studies have prospectively recruited patients prior to receiving a new diagnosis of cancer and included spouses or partners.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Couples Cope Study is to understand the impact of undergoing a diagnostic biopsy and receiving a new cancer diagnosis on quality of life (QoL) in both patients and their spouses or partners, as well as on the quality of their relationship. This protocol paper describes the study design and assesses the feasibility of recruitment and retention.
METHODS: Study staff reviewed the schedules of collaborating physicians using specific encounter codes to identify patients scheduled for breast or prostate biopsies. Potential participants were prescreened via the electronic health record and sent a recruitment letter at least 2 to 3 weeks prior to their biopsy procedure. Patients subsequently underwent a phone screening to determine eligibility. Patients who enrolled provided study staff with contact information for their spouses or partners. All consent forms were completed online. Surveys were completed online prior to receiving the biopsy results (baseline), and at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after the biopsy. Study staff engaged in ongoing, personalized contact with participants and sent assessment completion reminders via phone and email.
RESULTS: A total of 2294 patients undergoing a breast or prostate biopsy were identified and 69% (n=1582) were eligible for phone screening following electronic health record prescreening. Of the 431 patients who underwent phone screening, 75% (n=321) were eligible to participate. Of the eligible patients, 72% (n=231) enrolled and 82% (n=190) of enrolled patients had an accompanying partner or spouse who also enrolled. A total of 77% (34/44) of patients who received a cancer diagnosis and 72% (26/36) of their spouses or partners were retained through 9 months, while 80% (53/66) of patients who received a benign diagnosis and 68% (42/62) of their partners were retained.
CONCLUSIONS: Prospective recruitment of patients undergoing diagnostic biopsy and their partners is feasible and requires both strategic collaboration with providers and concerted prescreening and recruitment efforts by study staff. Importantly, this study was able to conduct all study activities online without disrupting clinical workflow and without requiring patients and their spouses or partners to come into the laboratory. Consideration should be given to the ratio of biopsies to cancer diagnoses, which can vary significantly by cancer type. Prospective studies are needed and can inform our ability to provide effective support earlier to couples facing a possible cancer diagnosis. Future studies should examine other tumor types that have received less attention in QoL studies, include behavioral and neurobiological assessments beyond self-report measures, and follow couples beyond 9 months in order to examine long-term effects on QoL.
UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/52361.

Prostate cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers among men in the world today. Since its introduction in 1987 and FDA approval in 1994, prostate specific antigen (PSA) has reduced prostate cancer specific mortality considerably. However, the positive and negative predictive value of PSA is less than ideal and can lead to the over-detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. In the search for better screening measures to identify this cohort, liquid biomarkers for prostate cancer have emerged. In this review we will explore the commonly used urine and blood based prostate cancer liquid biomarkers. We detail the mechanism of each test and the validation studies that underscore their efficacy. Additionally, we will examine each test\'s effect on shared decision making as well as their cost efficacy in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a promising tool for risk assessment, potentially reducing the burden of unnecessary prostate biopsies. Risk prediction models that incorporate MRI data have gained attention, but their external validation and comparison are essential for guiding clinical practice. The aim is to externally validate and compare risk prediction models for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).
METHODS: A cohort of 4606 patients across fifteen European tertiary referral centers were identified from a prospective maintained database between January 2016 and April 2023. Transrectal or transperineal image-fusion MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies for PI-RADS score of ≥ 3 or ≥ 2 depending on patient characteristics and physician preferences. Probabilities for csPCa, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥ 2, were calculated for each patients using eight models. Performance was characterized by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration, and net benefit. Subgroup analyses were performed across various clinically relevant subgroups.
RESULTS: Overall, csPCa was detected in 2154 (47%) patients. The models exhibited satisfactory performance, demonstrating good discrimination (AUC ranging from 0.75 to 0.78, p < 0.001), adequate calibration, and high net benefit. The model described by Alberts showed the highest clinical utility for threshold probabilities between 10 and 20%. Subgroup analyses highlighted variations in models\' performance, particularly when stratified according to PSA level, biopsy technique and PI-RADS version.
CONCLUSIONS: We report a comprehensive external validation of risk prediction models for csPCa diagnosis in patients who underwent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies. The model by Alberts demonstrated superior clinical utility and should be favored when determining the need for a prostate biopsy.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Contact laser vaporization of the prostate (CVP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia is a widely accepted and safe procedure for elderly patients because of its lower bleeding risks. However, CVP lacks a postoperative pathological examination for prostate cancer. Concomitant prostate biopsy and CVP may complement this disadvantage; however, the risk of bleeding associated with this procedure remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of a concomitant prostate biopsy and CVP.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective study included 106 men who had undergone CVP in Nerima General Hospital. Prostate biopsies and CVP were performed simultaneously on 16 patients. We defined the \"hemorrhage group\" by a >5% decrease in hemoglobin the day after surgery. Preoperative and operative indices were evaluated based on the association with the hemorrhage group.
UNASSIGNED: Participants in the concomitant biopsy group were older (p = 0.001), had larger prostates (p = 0.014), a lower rate of prostate biopsy history (p = 0.046), longer postoperative urinary catheter duration (p = 0.024), and a higher rate of decline in hemoglobin levels the day after surgery (p = 0.023). Patients in the hemorrhage group (n = 20, 18.9%) showed a significantly higher rate of concomitant biopsy and CVP (p = 0.006). Multivariate analysis showed that concomitant prostate biopsy (p = 0.009, odds ratio = 4.61) was the sole statistically significant predictive factor for hemorrhage.
UNASSIGNED: Concomitant prostate biopsy and CVP of the prostate may increase the risk of bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: There is not yet satisfactory performance data comparing multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) versus biparametric MRI (bpMRI) for detecting prostate cancer (PCa), particularly in high-risk populations. We compared both protocols for detecting overall PCa and clinically significant PCa (CS-PCa; defined as Grade Group ≥ 2) in a multiethnic urban population.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical record data from men who underwent image-guided fusion prostate biopsy (FB) between 2016 and 2021 at our institution. Patient characteristics, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores, and FB outcomes were analyzed based on MRI protocol. Multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to examine associations of bpMRI versus mpMRI for detecting overall PCa and CS-PCa in targeted lesions, among all patients and stratified by race/ethnicity.
RESULTS: Overall, 566 men (44.0% Non-Hispanic Black [NHB]; 27.0% Hispanic) with 975 PI-RADS 3-5 lesions on MRI underwent FB. Of these, 312 (55%) men with 497 lesions underwent mpMRI and 254 (45%) men with 478 lesions underwent bpMRI. On multivariate analyses among all men, the odds of detecting overall PCa (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.05-3.11, p = 0.031) and CS-PCa (OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.16-4.00, p = 0.014) on FB were higher for lesions identified on bpMRI than mpMRI. When stratified by race/ethnicity, the odds of detecting overall PCa (OR = 1.86; p = 0.15) and CS-PCa (OR = 2.20; p = 0.06) were not statistically different between lesions detected on bpMRI or mpMRI.
CONCLUSIONS: BpMRI has similar diagnostic performance to mpMRI in detecting overall and CS-PCa within a racially/ethnically diverse population. BpMRI can be utilized for evaluating suspected CS-PCa among NHB and Hispanic men.