Objectives To compare targeted, transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (US)‐fusion biopsy to systematic transrectal biopsy in patients with previous negative or first prostate biopsy and to evaluate the gain in diagnostic information with systematic biopsies in addition to targeted MRI/US‐fusion biopsies. Patients and Methods In all, 263 consecutive patients with suspicion of prostate cancer were investigated. All patients were evaluated by 3‐T multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) applying the European Society of Urogenital Radiology criteria. All patients underwent MRI/US‐fusion biopsy transperineally (mean nine cores) and additionally a systematic transrectal biopsy (mean 12 cores). Results In all, 195 patients underwent repeat biopsy and 68 patients underwent first biopsy. The median age was 66 years, median PSA level was 8.3 ng/mL and median prostate volume was 50 mL. Overall, the prostate cancer detection rate was 52% (137/263). MRI/US‐fusion biopsy detected significantly more cancer than systematic prostate biopsy (44% [116/263] vs 35% [91/263]; P = 0.002). In repeat biopsy, the detection rate was 44% (85/195) in targeted and 32% (62/195) in systematic biopsy (P = 0.002). In first biopsy, the detection rate was 46% (31/68) in targeted and 43% (29/68) in systematic biopsy (P = 0.527). In all, 80% (110/137) of biopsy confirmed prostate cancers were clinically significant. For the upgrading of Gleason score, 44% (32/72) more clinically significant prostate cancer was detected by using additional targeted biopsy than by systematic biopsy alone. Conversely, 12% (10/94) more clinically significant cancer was found by systematic biopsy additionally to targeted biopsy. Conclusions MRI/US‐fusion biopsy was associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer while taking fewer cores, especially in patients with prior negative biopsy. Due to a high portion of additional tumours with Gleason score ≥7 detected in addition to targeted biopsy, systematic biopsy should still be performed additionally to targeted biopsy.

ObjectiveTo compare multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate and histological findings of both targeted MRI/ultrasonography-fusion prostate biopsy (PBx) and systematic PBx with final histology of the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen. Patients and MethodsA total of 105 patients with prostate cancer (PCa) histopathologically proven using a combination of fusion Pbx and systematic PBx, who underwent RP, were investigated. All patients had been examined using mpMRI, applying the European Society of Urogenital Radiology criteria. Histological findings from the RP specimen were compared with those from the PBx. Whole-mount RP specimen and mpMRI results were directly compared by a uro-pathologist and a uro-radiologist in step-section analysis. ResultsIn the 105 patients with histopathologically proven PCa by combination of fusion PBx and systematic PBx, the detection rate of PCa was 90% (94/105) in fusion PBx alone and 68% (72/105) in systematic PBx alone (P = 0.001). The combination PBx detected 23 (22%) Gleason score (GS) 6, 69 (66%) GS 7 and 13 (12%) GS ≥8 tumours. Fusion PBx alone detected 25 (26%) GS 6, 57 (61%) GS 7 and 12 (13%) GS ≥8 tumours. Systematic PBx alone detected 17 (24%) GS 6, 49 (68%) GS 7 and 6 (8%) GS ≥8 tumours. . The rates of concordance with regard to GS between the PBx and RP specimen were 63% (n = 65), 54% (n = 56) and 75% (n = 78) in fusion, systematic and combination PBx (fusion and systematic PBx combined), respectively. Upgrading of the GS between PBx and RP specimen occurred in 33% (n = 34), 44% (n = 46) and 18% (n = 19) in fusion, systematic and combination PBx, respectively. c-correlation for detection of any cancer was 0.76 for combination PBx, 0.68 for fusion PBx alone and 0.23 for systematic PBx alone. In all, 84% (n = 88) of index tumours were identified by mpMRI; 86% (n = 91) of index lesions on the mpMRI were proven in the RP specimen. ConclusionsFusion PBx of tumour-suspicious lesions on mpMRI was associated with a higher detection rate of more aggressive PCa and a better tumour prediction in final histopathology than systematic PBx alone; however, combination PBx had the best concordance for the prediction of GS. Furthermore, the additional findings of systematic PBx reflect the multifocality of PCa, therefore, the combination of both biopsy methods would still represent the best approach for the prediction of the final tumour grading in PCa. KeywordsMRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy, prostate cancer, multiparametric MRI, prostatectomy specimen, systematic biopsy, direct comparison

The increasing age of patients with presumably higher comorbidity in recent years led to increased use of incontinent UD in Germany, while continent UD appears to be underused in the US. Mortality and transfusion rates were significantly lower in the US within a shorter hospital stay.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the detection of significant prostate cancer (PCa) and to compare transperineal MRI/ ultrasonography fusion biopsy (fusPbx) with conventional transrectal systematic biopsy (sysPbx) in biopsy-na€ ıve patients. Patients and MethodsThis multicentre, prospective trial investigated biopsy-na€ ıve patients with suspicion of PCa undergoing transperineal fusPbx in combination with transrectal sysPbx (comPbx). The primary outcome was the detection of significant PCa, defined as Gleason pattern 4 or 5. We analysed the results after a study period of 2 years. ResultsThe study included 214 patients. The median (range) number of targeted and systematic cores was 6 (2-15) and 12 (6-18), respectively. The overall PCa detection rate of comPbx was 52%. FusPbx detected more PCa than sysPbx (47% vs 43%; P = 0.15). The detection rate of significant PCa was 38% for fusPbx and 35% for sysPbx (P = 0.296). The rate of missed significant PCa was 14% in fusPbx and 21% in sysPbx. ComPbx detected significantly more significant PCa than fusPbx and sysPbx alone (44% vs 38% vs 35%; P < 0.005). In patients presenting with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 and 5 lesions there was a higher detection rate of significant PCa than in patients presenting with PI-RADS ≤3 lesions in comPbx (61% vs 14%; P < 0.005). ConclusionsFor biopsy-na€ ıve men with tumour-suspicious lesions in mpMRI, the combined approach outperformed both fusPbx and sysPbx in the detection of overall PCa and significant PCa. Thus, biopsy-na€ ıve patients may benefit from sysPbx in combination with mpMRI targeted fusPbx.

No abstract

Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the prediction of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) with respect to the prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate and tumor aggressiveness in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound-fusion-biopsy (fusPbx) and in systematic biopsy (sysPbx). Materials and Methods: Six hundred and twenty five patients undergoing multiparametric MRI were investigated. MRI findings were classified using PI-RADS v1 or v2. All patients underwent fusPbx combined with sysPbx (comPbx). The lesion with the highest PI-RADS was defined as maximum PI-RADS (maxPI-RADS). Gleason Score ≥7 (3 + 4) was defined as significant PCa. Results: The overall PCa detection rate was 51% (n = 321; 39% significant PCa). The detection rate was 43% in fusPbx (n = 267; 34% significant PCa) and 36% in sysPbx (n = 223; 27% significant PCa). Nine percentage of significant PCa were detected by sysPbx alone. A total of 1,162 lesions were investigated. The detection rate of significant PCa in lesions with PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 9% (18/206), 12% (56/450), 27% (98/358), and 61% (90/148) respectively. maxPI-RADS ≥4 was the strongest predictor for the detection of significant PCa in comPbx (OR 2.77; 95% CI 1.81-4.24; p < 0.005). Conclusions: maxPI-RADS is the strongest predictor for the detection of significant PCa in comPbx. Due to a high detection rate of additional significant PCa in sysPbx, fusPbx should still be combined with sysPbx.

No abstract

Neuropilin‐2 (NRP2) is a member of the neuropilin receptor family and known to regulate autophagy and mTORC2 signaling in prostate cancer (PCa). Our study investigated the association of immunohistochemical NRP2 expression with clinicopathological data in PCa patients. For this purpose, we generated a tissue microarray with prostate tissue specimens from 400 PCa patients treated by radical prostatectomy. We focused on patients with high‐risk factors such as extraprostatic extension (pT ≥ 3), Gleason score ≥8 and/or the presence of regional lymph node metastases (pN1). Protein levels of NRP2, the vascular endothelial growth factor C (VEGFC) and oncogenic v‐ets avian erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (ERG) gene as an indicator for TMPRSS2‐ERG fusion was assessed in relation to the patients' outcome. NRP2 emerged as an independent prognostic factor for cancer‐specific survival (CSS) (hazard ratio 2.360, 95% confidence interval = 1.2–4.8; p = 0.016). Moreover, the association between NRP2 expression and shorter CSS was also especially pronounced in patients at high risk for progression (log‐rank test: p = 0.010). We evaluated the association between NRP2 and the TMPRSS2‐ERG gene fusion status assessed by immunohistochemical nuclear ERG staining. However, ERG staining alone did not show any prognostic significance. NRP2 immunostaining is significantly associated with shorter CSS in ERG‐negative tumors (log‐rank test: p = 0.012). No prognostic impact of NRP2 expression on CSS was observed in ERG‐positive tumors (log‐rank test: p = 0.153). Our study identifies NRP2 as an important prognostic marker for a worse clinical outcome especially in patients with a high‐risk PCa and in patients with ERG‐negative PCa.