Search

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a major public health concern for men globally and the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men in the European Union (EU). Despite large trials suggesting benefits from early detection of PCa, risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment are evident. In 2022, the EU Commission proposed introducing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for men in an organised setting, in combination with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning as a follow-up test to minimise these risks. PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening Europe (PRAISE-U) is a pilot study evaluating the implementation of a risk-stratified population-based approach to PCa screening in Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, and two areas in Spain (Galicia and Manresa) for feasibility, efficacy, and cost effectiveness. As per the protocol designed for the pilots, men aged 50–69 yr residing within the catchment area of the study sites will be invited to participate. Those consenting to participate will undergo PSA testing, and men with PSA >3 ng/ml will undergo risk stratification before MRI and, if necessary, after MRI before undergoing biopsy. A collaborative user board comprising health care professionals, patients, and decision-makers will be formed to provide stakeholder input throughout the study. PRAISE-U will be evaluated on three major pillars: analysis of clinical and programme outcomes, psychosocial impact, and cost effectiveness. A set of key performance indicators (KPIs) has been developed to be piloted in the PRAISE-U pilot sites. The KPIs will serve to assess the performance and outcomes of risk-stratified PCa screening at each site. A REDCap database will be used to collect and manage pseudoanonymised data from the pilot sites. Ethics approval was obtained from each pilot site. The PRAISE-U pilot implementation is expected to commence in the 3rd quarter of 2024 for 12 mo and provide valuable data on the implementation outcomes of a risk-stratified screening approach across Europe. The findings is expected to inform the development of an optimised screening strategy with an acceptable benefit to harm ratio.

Background and objective: The shift toward targeted biopsy (TBx) aims at enhancing prostate cancer (PCa) detection while reducing overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant disease. Despite the improved ability of TBx in identifying clinically significant PCa (csPCa), the optimal number and location of targeted cores remain unclear. This review aims to assess the optimal number of prostate biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted cores to detect csPCa. Methods: A narrative literature search was conducted using PubMed, focusing on studies published between January 2014 and January 2024, addressing factors influencing targeted core numbers during prostate biopsy. The search included both retrospective and prospective studies, prioritizing those with substantial sample sizes and employing terms such as “prostate biopsy”, “mpMRI”, “core number”, and “cancer detection”. Key findings and limitations: Two biopsy cores identified csPCa in 55–65% of cases. This detection rate improved to approximately 90% when the number of cores was ≥5. The inclusion of perilesional and systematic biopsies could maximize the detection of csPCa (from 10% to 45%), especially in patients under active surveillance or with prior negative biopsy results, although there is an increase in the overdiagnosis of indolent tumors (from 4% to 20%). Transperineal software-assisted target prostate biopsy may enhance cancer detection, particularly for tumors located at the apex/anterior part of the prostate. Increasing the number of TBx cores may incrementally raise the risk of complications (by 2–14% with each added core) and result in severe pain and significant discomfort for up to 17% and 25% of TBx patients, respectively. However, the overall rate and severity of these complications remain within acceptable limits. Conclusions and clinical implications: The optimal number of cores for targeted prostate biopsies should balance minimizing sampling errors with effective cancer detection and should be tailored to each patient’s unique prostate characteristics. Up to five cores per MRI target may be considered to enhance the detection of csPCa, with adjustments based on factors such as prostate and lesion volume, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, biopsy techniques, complications, patient discomfort, and anxiety. Patient summary: In this report, we found that increasing the number of biopsy cores up to ≥5 improves the detection rates of significant prostate cancer significantly to around 90%. Although inclusion of nearby and systematic biopsies enhances detection, increasing the biopsy count may lead to higher risks of complications and indolent tumors. A customized biopsy approach based on multiple variables could be helpful in determining the appropriate number of targeted biopsies on a case-by-case basis.

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined. Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa. Design, setting, and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline. Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa. Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

The role and timing of radiotherapy (RT) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial. While recent trials support the oncological safety of early salvage RT (SRT) compared to adjuvant RT (ART) in selected patients, previous randomized studies demonstrated that ART might improve recurrence-free survival in patients at high risk for local recurrence based on adverse pathology. Although ART might improve survival, this approach is characterized by a risk of overtreatment in up to 40% of cases. SRT is defined as the administration of RT to the prostatic bed and to the surrounding tissues in the patient with PSA recurrence after surgery but no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The delivery of salvage therapies exclusively in men who experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) has the potential advantage of reducing the risk of side effects without theoretically compromising outcomes. However, how to select patients at risk of progression who are more likely to benefit from a more aggressive treatment after RP, the exact timing of RT after RP, and the use of hormone therapy and its duration at the time of RT are still open issues. Moreover, what the role of novel imaging techniques and genomic classifiers are in identifying the most optimal post-operative management of PCa patients treated with RP is yet to be clarified. This narrative review summarizes most relevant published data to guide a multidisciplinary team in selecting appropriate candidates for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy.

Focal therapy is a modern alternative to selectively treat a specific part of the prostate harboring clinically significant disease while preserving the rest of the gland. The aim of this therapeutic approach is to retain the oncological benefit of active treatment and to minimize the side-effects of common radical treatments. The oncological effectiveness of focal therapy is yet to be proven in long-term robust trials. In contrast, the toxicity profile is well-established in randomized controlled trials and multiple robust prospective cohort studies. This narrative review summarizes the relevant evidence on complications and their management after focal therapy. When compared to whole gland treatments, focal therapy provides a substantial benefit in terms of adverse events reduction and preservation of genito-urinary function. The most common complications occur in the peri-operative period. Urinary tract infection and acute urinary retention can occur in up to 17% of patients, while dysuria and haematuria are more common. Urinary incontinence following focal therapy is very rare (0–5%), and the vast majority of patients recover in few weeks. Erectile dysfunction can occur after focal therapy in 0–46%: the baseline function and the ablation template are the most important factors predicting post-operative erectile dysfunction. Focal therapy in the salvage setting after external beam radiotherapy has a significantly higher rate of complications. Up to one man in 10 will present a severe complication.