Search

Background and objective: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains a critical marker for prostate cancer (PCa) detection and monitoring. Recognising historical variability in PSA assays and the evolution of assay technology and calibration, this study aims to reassess interassay variability using the latest generation of five assays in a contemporary cohort of men undergoing prostate biopsy. Methods: Five different commercially available PSA assays were tested in a blood sample of 76 men before undergoing a prostate biopsy. Total PSA (tPSA) and free-to-total PSA ratio (%fPSA) were compared across assays, using Roche (Basel, Switzerland) as the benchmark, and correlated with biopsy outcome to analyse the impact on PCa diagnosis. The statistical analysis included Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots, with a p value threshold of 0.05). The variability across assays would have resulted in discrepancies in both the sensitivity and the specificity for tPSA and %fPSA by at least 14%, depending on the cut-offs applied. Conclusions and clinical implications: Despite the use of the latest PSA assays, relevant variability of tPSA and %fPSA results can be observed among different assays. There is an urgent need for standardised calibration methods and greater awareness among practitioners concerning interassay variability. Clinicians should acknowledge that clinically relevant thresholds may depend on the specific PSA assay and that ideally the same assay is applied over time for better clinical decision-making. Patient summary: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a critical marker for prostate cancer (PCa) detection and monitoring. However, significant variations were observed in the results of the latest PSA assays. Thus, standardised calibration methods and greater awareness among practitioners concerning interassay variability are needed.

Abstract Objectives The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has been widely adopted in the diagnostic work‐up for suspicious prostate cancer (PCa) and is recommended in most current guidelines. However, mpMRI lesions are often indeterminate and/or turn out to be false‐positive on prostate biopsy. The aim of this work was to evaluate Proclarix, a biomarker test for the detection of relevant PCa, regarding its diagnostic value in all men before biopsy and in men with indeterminate lesions on mpMRI (PI‐RADS 3) during work‐up for PCa. Materials and Methods Men undergoing mpMRI‐targeted and systematic biopsy of the prostate were prospectively enrolled. The Proclarix test was evaluated for the detection accuracy of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Grade Group ≥ 2 and its association to mpMRI results. Further, Proclarix's performance was also tested when adapted to prostate volume (Proclarix density) and performance compared to PSA density (PSAD). Results A total of 150 men with a median age of 65 years and median PSA of 5.8 ng/mL were included in this study. CsPCa was diagnosed in 65 (43%) men. Proclarix was significantly associated with csPCa and higher PI‐RADS score (p

Abstract Background To investigate the association between erectile dysfunction (ED) as well as epistaxis (ES) in relation to the extent of iliac atherosclerosis. Methods In this retrospective cross-sectional study, all consecutive male patients treated at our institution from 01/2016 to 12/2020 undergoing abdominal CT scan were evaluated. Patients (n = 1272) were invited by mail to participate in the study in returning two questionnaires for the evaluation of ED (IIEF-5) and ES. Patients who returned filled-in questionnaires within a 3-month deadline were included in the study. The extent of atherosclerosis in the common iliac artery (CIA) and the internal iliac artery (IIA) was assessed by calcium scoring on unenhanced CT. Stratification of results was performed according to reported IIEF-5 scores and consequential ED groups. Results In total, 437 patients (34.4% of contacted) met the inclusion criteria. Forty-two patients did not fulfill predefined age requirements (

ObjectivesTo develop a novel biopsy prostate cancer (PCa) prevention calculator (BioPrev-C) using data from a prospective cohort all undergoing mpMRI targeted and transperineal template saturation biopsy.Materials and methodsData of all men who underwent prostate biopsy in our academic tertiary care center between 11/2016 and 10/2019 was prospectively collected. We developed a clinical prediction model for the detection of high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7) based on a multivariable logistic regression model incorporating age, PSA, prostate volume, digital rectal examination, family history, previous negative biopsy, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor use and MRI PI-RADS score. BioPrev-C performance was externally validated in another prospective Swiss cohort and compared with two other PCa risk-calculators (SWOP-RC and PBCG-RC).ResultsOf 391 men in the development cohort, 157 (40.2%) were diagnosed with high-grade PCa. Validation of the BioPrev C revealed good discrimination with an area under the curve for high-grade PCa of 0.88 (95% Confidence Interval 0.82-0.93), which was higher compared to the other two risk calculators (0.71 for PBCG and 0.84 for SWOP). The BioPrev-C revealed good calibration in the low-risk range (0 - 0.25) and moderate overestimation in the intermediate risk range (0.25 - 0.75). The PBCG-RC showed good calibration and the SWOP-RC constant underestimation of high-grade PCa over the whole prediction range. Decision curve analyses revealed a clinical net benefit for the BioPrev-C at a clinical meaningful threshold probability range (≥4%), whereas PBCG and SWOP calculators only showed clinical net benefit above a 30% threshold probability.ConclusionBiopPrev-C is a novel contemporary risk calculator for the prediction of high-grade PCa. External validation of the BioPrev-C revealed relevant clinical benefit, which was superior compared to other well-known risk calculators. The BioPrev-C has the potential to significantly and safely reduce the number of men who should undergo a prostate biopsy.

OBJECTIVES: Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer closely monitors patients conservatively instead of the pursuit of active treatment to reduce overtreatment of insignificant disease. Since 2009, active surveillance has been recommended as the primary management option in the European Association of Urology guidelines for low-risk disease. The present study aimed to investigate the use and uptake of active surveillance over 10 years in our certified prostate cancer centre (University Hospital of Zurich) compared with those derived from the cancer registry of the canton of Zurich, Switzerland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified all men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer at our institution and from the cancer registry of the canton of Zurich from 2009 to 2018. The primary treatment of each patient was recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the use of different treatments in our centre. The results were compared with those derived from the cancer registry. RESULTS: A total of 3393 men with low-risk prostate cancer were included in this study (University Hospital of Zurich: n = 262; cancer registry: n = 3131). In the University Hospital of Zurich and cancer registry cohorts, 146 (55.7%) and 502 (16%) men underwent active surveillance, respectively. The proportions of local treatment [115 (43.9%) vs 2220 (71%)] and androgen deprivation therapy [0 (0%) vs 43 (1.4%)] were distinctly lower in the University Hospital of Zurich cohort than in the cancer registry cohort. The uptake of active surveillance over the years was high in the University Hospital of Zurich cohort (35.4% in 2009 and 88.2% in 2018) but only marginal in the cancer registry cohort (12.2% in 2009 and 16.2% in 2018). CONCLUSION:Despite clear guideline recommendations, active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer is still widely underused. Our analysis showed that access to a certified interdisciplinary tumour board significantly increases the use of active surveillance.