Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer is usually reported as either focal (F-EPE) or established (E-EPE), but data on the implication for outcomes of this subdivision are conflicting and no systematic review (SR) evaluating this exists. This SR aims to address this gap in the literature, focusing on the impact of F-EPE and E-EPE on outcome in radical prostatectomy (RP) patients. Searches on Embase, Medline(R), and Pubmed databases were conducted. Studies were included if they investigated the extent of EPE in RP patients and correlated this with defined outcomes (biochemical recurrence [BCR], death, metastasis). Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random effects model was used for studies reporting hazard ratios (EPE extent and biochemical recurrence). 24 studies, including 49,187 men, were included. Six studies were of high quality. 20 studies reported how they measured EPE. 13 studies reported that the extent of EPE was associated significantly with BCR. Meta-analysis showed there was a significant correlation between BCR and both F-EPE and E-EPE when compared to organ-confined disease; no significant difference was found between F-EPE and E-EPE. This is the only SR to investigate the extent of EPE on outcomes after RP. EPE alone predicts outcome, but the value of subdivision by extent could not be demonstrated. Comparisons are limited due to variability in EPE assessment and in the methods used to report outcomes in the literature. Further work to standardize EPE reporting methods, in larger cohorts, may be helpful to resolve remaining questions.

While the presence of adipose tissue and its involvement by prostatic cancer (extraprostatic extension) is well-recognized in prostate biopsies, adipose tissue in transurethral resections of the prostate (TURP) is largely unexplored. Herein, 200 consecutive TURPs and related specimens were reviewed, including a separate 3-year analysis of specimens containing prostatic cancer, with the following data collected: presence of fat, presence of cancer within fat, and quantity of fat. For specimens with both fat and prostatic cancer, specimen weight and tumor volume were recorded. Within the 200 consecutive TURPs and related specimens, adipose tissue was identified in 20%; 55% had 2.5 mm of adipose tissue; the number of fragments with adipose tissue ranged from 1 to 14. No correlation between specimen weight and measured extent of adipose tissue or number of fragments with adipose tissue was identified. Of all the specimens with prostatic cancer, 15/56 (27%) involved adipose tissue, with two specimens with large cancer volume (>90%) demonstrating extensive involvement of adipose tissue. Adipose tissue is frequently present within TURP and related specimens with variability in extent. The etiology behind encountering adipose tissue is uncertain, and it could represent resection into peri-prostatic fat, intraprostatic fat, or bladder neck fat sampling. Although encountering adipose tissue involved by cancer in TURP and related specimens may imply extraprostatic extension (pT3a), further studies are needed to corroborate these findings as well as to determine if these should be included in reported synoptics.

OBJECTIVE: Extraprostatic extension (EPE) is well established as a significant predictor of prostate cancer aggression and recurrence. Accurate EPE assessment prior to radical prostatectomy can impact surgical approach. We aimed to utilize a deep learning-based AI workflow for automated EPE grading from prostate T2W MRI, ADC map, and High B DWI.
METHODS: An expert genitourinary radiologist conducted prospective clinical assessments of MRI scans for 634 patients and assigned risk for EPE using a grading technique. The training set and held-out independent test set consisted of 507 patients and 127 patients, respectively. Existing deep-learning AI models for prostate organ and lesion segmentation were leveraged to extract area and distance features for random forest classification models. Model performance was evaluated using balanced accuracy, ROC AUCs for each EPE grade, as well as sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared to EPE on histopathology.
RESULTS: A balanced accuracy score of .390 ± 0.078 was achieved using a lesion detection probability threshold of 0.45 and distance features. Using the test set, ROC AUCs for AI-assigned EPE grades 0-3 were 0.70, 0.65, 0.68, and 0.55 respectively. When using EPE≥ 1 as the threshold for positive EPE, the model achieved a sensitivity of 0.67, specificity of 0.73, and accuracy of 0.72 compared to radiologist sensitivity of 0.81, specificity of 0.62, and accuracy of 0.66 using histopathology as the ground truth.
CONCLUSIONS: Our AI workflow for assigning imaging-based EPE grades achieves an accuracy for predicting histologic EPE approaching that of physicians. This automated workflow has the potential to enhance physician decision-making for assessing the risk of EPE in patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer due to its consistency and automation.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) is crucial for decision-making in radical prostatectomy (RP), especially in nerve-sparing strategies. Martini et al. introduced a three-tier algorithm for predicting contralateral EPE in unilateral high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of the study is to externally validate this model in a multicentric European cohort of patients.
METHODS: The data from 208 unilateral high-risk PCa patients diagnosed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies, treated with RP between January 2016 and November 2021 at eight referral centers were collected. The evaluation of model performance involved measures such as discrimination (AUC), calibration, and decision-curve analysis (DCA) following TRIPOD guidelines. In addition, a comparison was made with two established multivariable logistic regression models predicting the risk of side specific EPE for assessment purposes.
RESULTS: Overall, 38%, 48%, and 14% of patients were categorized as low, intermediate, and high-risk groups according to Martini et al.\'s model, respectively. At final pathology, EPE on the contralateral prostatic lobe occurred in 6.3%, 12%, and 34% of patients in the respective risk groups. The algorithm demonstrated acceptable discrimination (AUC 0.68), comparable to other multivariable logistic regression models (p = 0.3), adequate calibration and the highest net benefit in DCA. The limitations include the modest sample size, retrospective design, and lack of central revision.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings endorse the algorithm\'s commendable performance, supporting its utility in guiding treatment decisions for unilateral high-risk PCa patients.

UNASSIGNED: Prostate cancer invades the capsule is a key factor in selecting appropriate treatment methods. Accurate preoperative prediction of extraprostatic extension (EPE) can help achieve precise selection of treatment plans.
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study is to verify the diagnostic efficacy of tumor size, length of capsular contact (LCC), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and Amide proton transfer (APT) value in predicting EPE. Additionally, the study aims to investigate the potential additional value of APT for predicting EPE.
UNASSIGNED: This study include 47 tumor organ confined patients (age, 64.16 ± 9.18) and 50 EPE patients (age, 61.51 ± 8.82). The difference of tumor size, LCC, ADC and APT value between groups were compared. Binary logistic regression was used to screen the EPE predictors. The receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was performed to assess the diagnostic performance of variables for predicting EPE. The diagnostic efficacy of combined models (model I: ADC+LCC+tumor size; model II: APT+LCC+tumor size; and model III: APT +ADC+LCC+tumor size) were also analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: APT, ADC, tumor size and the LCC were independent predictors of EPE. The area under the curve (AUC) of APT, ADC, tumor size and the LCC were 0.752, 0.665, 0.700 and 0.756, respectively. The AUC of model I, model II, and model III were 0.803, 0.845 and 0.869, respectively. The cutoff value of APT, ADC, tumor size and the LCC were 3.65%, 0.97×10-3mm2/s, 17.30mm and 10.78mm, respectively. The sensitivity/specificity of APT, ADC, tumor size and the LCC were 76%/89.4.0%, 80%/59.6%, 54%/78.9%, 72%/66%, respectively. The sensitivity/specificity of model I, Model II and Model III were 74%/72.3%, 82%/72.5% and 84%/80.9%, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: Amide proton transfer imaging has added value for predicting EPE. The combination model of APT balanced the sensitivity and specificity.

Cancer spread beyond the prostate, including extraprostatic extension (other than seminal vesicle or bladder invasion; EPE)/microscopic bladder neck invasion and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) currently classified as pT3a and pT3b lesions, respectively, does not uniformly indicate poor oncologic outcomes. Accurate risk stratification of current pT3 disease is therefore required. We herein further determined the prognostic impact of these histopathologic lesions routinely assessed and reported by pathologists, particularly their combinations. We assessed consecutive 2892 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for current pT2 (n = 1692), pT3a (n = 956), or pT3b (n = 244) disease at our institution between 2009 and 2018. Based on our preliminary findings, point(s) were given (1 point to focal EPE, microscopic bladder neck invasion, or unilateral SVI; 2 points to nonfocal/established EPE or bilateral SVI) and summed up in each case. Our cohort had 0 point (n = 1692, 58.5%; P0), 1 point (n = 243, 8.4%; P1), 2 points (n = 657, 22.7%; P2), 3 points (n = 192, 6.6%; P3), 4 points (n = 76, 2.6%; P4), and 5 points (n = 32, 1.1%; P5). Univariate analysis revealed associations of higher points with significantly worse biochemical progression-free survival, particularly when P4 and P5 were combined. In multivariable analysis (P0 as a reference), P1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; P = .033), P2 (HR, 3.25; P < .001), P3 (HR, 4.01; P < .001), and P4 + P5 (HR, 5.99; P < .001) showed significance for the risk of postoperative progression. Meanwhile, Harrell C-indexes for the current pT staging, newly developed point system, and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment post-Surgical (CAPRA-S) score were 0.727 (95% CI, 0.706-0.748), 0.751 (95% CI, 0.729-0.773), and 0.774 (95% CI, 0.755-0.794), respectively, for predicting progression. We believe our data provide a logical rationale for a novel pathologic T-staging system based on the summed points, pT1a (0 point), pT1b (1 point), pT2 (2 points), pT3a (3 points), and pT3b (4 or 5 points), which more accurately stratifies the prognosis of prostate cancer.

UNASSIGNED: We sought to examine the association of extraprostatic extension (EPE) with biochemical recurrence (BCR) separately in men with Grade Group (GG) 1 and GG2 prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radical prostatectomy.
UNASSIGNED: We reviewed our institutional database of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for PCa between 2005 and 2022 and identified patients with GG1 and GG2 disease on final pathology. Fine-Gray competing risk models with an interaction between EPE (yes vs no) and GG (GG1 vs GG2) were used to examine the relationship between disease group and BCR-free survival.
UNASSIGNED: The cohort consisted of 6309 men, of whom 169/2740 (6.2%) with GG1 disease had EPE while 1013/3569 (28.4%) with GG2 disease had EPE. Median follow-up was 4 years. BCR occurred in 400/6309 (6.3%) patients. For men with GG1, there was no statistically significant difference in BCR-free survival for men with vs without EPE (subdistribution HR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.37-2.09). However, for GG2 patients BCR-free survival was significantly worse for those with vs without EPE (subdistribution HR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.54-2.52).
UNASSIGNED: Although there is a subset of GG1 PCas capable of invading through the prostatic capsule, patients with GG1 PCa and EPE at prostatectomy experience similar biochemical recurrence and survival outcomes compared to GG1 patients without EPE. However, among men with GG2, EPE connotes a worse prognosis.

On the samples of 26 prostatectomies, the method of excision of the prostate gland according to Kim was tested. This method increased the number of blocks by 30.2% and increased the detectability of extraprostatic extension by 41.7% and positive surgical margin by 40.0% compared to the method of alternate prostate sections. Also, the method according to Kim reduced the number of blocks of prostate tissue by 34.3% compared to the method of complete prostate excision.
На образцах 26 простатэктомий опробован метод вырезки предстательной железы (ПЖ) по Kim. С помощью данного метода увеличено количество блоков на 30,2% и выявляемость экстрапростатического распространения на 41,7%, а положительного края резекции (ПКР) на 40% по сравнению с методом чередующихся сечений ПЖ. Также при вырезке ПЖ по Kim снизилось количество блоков на 34,3% по сравнению с методом полной вырезки ПЖ.

BACKGROUND: Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer (PCa) on transrectal (TR) needle core biopsy (Bx) is a rare histopathological finding that can help in clinical decision-making. The detection efficiency of the transperineal (TP) approach is yet to be explored.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 2848 PCa cases using concomitant systemic template biopsy (SBx) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (TBx) using the TR (n = 1917) or TP (n = 931) approach at our institution between January 2015 and July 2022. We assessed and compared clinical, MRI, and biopsy characteristics using different approaches (TP and TR) and methods (SBx and TBx).
RESULTS: In total, 40 EPE cases were identified (40/2848, 1.4%). TP showed a significantly higher EPE detection rate compared to TR in SBx (TR:0.7% vs. TP:1.6%; p = 0.028) and TBx (TR:0.5% vs. TP:1.2%; p = 0.033), as well as the combined methods (2.1% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.019). A significantly higher incidence of EPEs was found at non-base sites in TP than in TR (76.7% vs. 50%, p = 0.038). SBx showed a higher EPE detection rate than TBx; however, the difference was not statistically significant. TP showed higher prostate-specific antigen density (0.35 vs. 0.17, p = 0.005), higher frequency of GG4-5 in the cores with EPE (65.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.020), and more PCa-positive SBx cores (10 vs. 8, p = 0.023) compared to the TR.
CONCLUSIONS: TP may improve EPE detection compared with TR and should be applied to patients with adverse pre-biopsy features.

OBJECTIVE: To identify effective factors predicting extraprostatic extension (EPE) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study recruited 898 consecutive patients with PCa treated with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The patients were divided into EPE and non-EPE groups based on the analysis of whole-mount histopathologic sections. Histopathological analysis (ISUP biopsy grade group) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (PI-RADS v2.1 scores [1-5] and the Mehralivand EPE grade [0-3]) were used to assess the prediction of EPE. We also assessed the clinical usefulness of the prediction model based on decision-curve analysis.
RESULTS: Of 800 included patients, 235 (29.3%) had EPE, and 565 patients (70.7%) did not (non-EPE). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the biopsy ISUP grade, PI-RADS v2.1 score, and Mehralivand EPE grade were independent risk factors for EPE. In the regression assessment of the models, the best discrimination (area under the curve of 0.879) was obtained using the basic model (age, serum PSA, prostate volume at MRI, positive biopsy core, clinical T stage, and D\'Amico risk group) and Mehralivand EPE grade 3. Decision-curve analysis showed that combining Mehralivand EPE grade 3 with the basic model resulted in superior net benefits for predicting EPE.
CONCLUSIONS: Mehralivand EPE grades and PI-RADS v2.1 scores, in addition to basic clinical and demographic information, are potentially useful for predicting EPE in patients with PCa.