User login
Study Gives Clinical Edge to Transperineal Prostate Biopsies
In the largest head-to-head randomized trial of its kind, UK researchers found transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia (LATP) superior to the transrectal approach in detecting clinically significant cancers.
The TRANSLATE study, with more than 1100 patients, found LATP identified 5.7% more cases of clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as Grade Group 2 or higher, than biopsies using transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS).
Previous research comparing the two techniques has focused mainly on rates of infection rather than cancer detection, said Richard Bryant, PhD, a consultant urologist at Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford in Oxford, England, who led the trial.
“We decided that the most important thing to look at is the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, because that is why the man is having the biopsy in the first place, rather than to avoid infection, although avoiding infection is of course also important,” Bryant said.
Bryant presented the findings at the 2025 annual congress of the European Association of Urology and his group published the results in The Lancet Oncology.
The TRANSLATE trial was powered to identify a difference in the rate of cancer detection but not factors such as pain and sepsis. Hospitalization after biopsies served as a proxy for sepsis.
Men in the trial were nearly twice as likely to report LATP to be problematic immediately after the procedure than those who underwent transrectal biopsies. These issues included pain, discomfort, and embarrassment.
Two of the 562 men in the LATP group were hospitalized within 35 days of the procedure compared with nine of the 564 in the TRUS group. Bryant said this trend favored LATP, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.
The data on infection and other secondary outcomes were encouraging, but not conclusive, Bryant’s group reported.
Richard Szabo, MD, a prostate biopsy researcher at University of California Irvine, said the reduction in post-biopsy sepsis has been “an additional major advantage” of transperineal over transrectal prostate biopsy.
Almost 90% of men who received LATP had the biopsies without antibiotics — a “bonus,” Bryant said.
Antibiotic stewardship is a major factor in research and policies regarding biopsies in Europe. Transperineal biopsies avoid the rectum and pass needles through the perineum between the anus and the testicles, reducing risk for infection.
Jim Hu, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at Weill Cornell in New York City and the principal investigator on the 2024 PREVENT trial, said three of four randomized trials reported in the past year, including PREVENT and TRANSLATE, have found transperineal biopsies resulted in fewer infections than the transrectal method.
European guidelines call transperineal biopsy the preferred approach based on infection concerns, whereas guidance from the American Urological Association gives equal weight to transperineal and transrectal biopsies.
Badar Mian, MD, a urologist at Albany Med Health System in Albany, New York, said the field should “shift our focus from picking a winner to instead focus on whether prostate biopsy procedures are safe and effective. Patients should be reassured that, while there are trade-offs, both procedures can be performed safely and with a high degree of accuracy.”
The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research funded TRANSLATE. Bryant received support from BXTAccelyon to attend biopsy training provided by Guys’ Hospital, in London, England.
Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based freelance writer.
A version of this article appeared at Medscape.com.
In the largest head-to-head randomized trial of its kind, UK researchers found transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia (LATP) superior to the transrectal approach in detecting clinically significant cancers.
The TRANSLATE study, with more than 1100 patients, found LATP identified 5.7% more cases of clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as Grade Group 2 or higher, than biopsies using transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS).
Previous research comparing the two techniques has focused mainly on rates of infection rather than cancer detection, said Richard Bryant, PhD, a consultant urologist at Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford in Oxford, England, who led the trial.
“We decided that the most important thing to look at is the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, because that is why the man is having the biopsy in the first place, rather than to avoid infection, although avoiding infection is of course also important,” Bryant said.
Bryant presented the findings at the 2025 annual congress of the European Association of Urology and his group published the results in The Lancet Oncology.
The TRANSLATE trial was powered to identify a difference in the rate of cancer detection but not factors such as pain and sepsis. Hospitalization after biopsies served as a proxy for sepsis.
Men in the trial were nearly twice as likely to report LATP to be problematic immediately after the procedure than those who underwent transrectal biopsies. These issues included pain, discomfort, and embarrassment.
Two of the 562 men in the LATP group were hospitalized within 35 days of the procedure compared with nine of the 564 in the TRUS group. Bryant said this trend favored LATP, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.
The data on infection and other secondary outcomes were encouraging, but not conclusive, Bryant’s group reported.
Richard Szabo, MD, a prostate biopsy researcher at University of California Irvine, said the reduction in post-biopsy sepsis has been “an additional major advantage” of transperineal over transrectal prostate biopsy.
Almost 90% of men who received LATP had the biopsies without antibiotics — a “bonus,” Bryant said.
Antibiotic stewardship is a major factor in research and policies regarding biopsies in Europe. Transperineal biopsies avoid the rectum and pass needles through the perineum between the anus and the testicles, reducing risk for infection.
Jim Hu, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at Weill Cornell in New York City and the principal investigator on the 2024 PREVENT trial, said three of four randomized trials reported in the past year, including PREVENT and TRANSLATE, have found transperineal biopsies resulted in fewer infections than the transrectal method.
European guidelines call transperineal biopsy the preferred approach based on infection concerns, whereas guidance from the American Urological Association gives equal weight to transperineal and transrectal biopsies.
Badar Mian, MD, a urologist at Albany Med Health System in Albany, New York, said the field should “shift our focus from picking a winner to instead focus on whether prostate biopsy procedures are safe and effective. Patients should be reassured that, while there are trade-offs, both procedures can be performed safely and with a high degree of accuracy.”
The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research funded TRANSLATE. Bryant received support from BXTAccelyon to attend biopsy training provided by Guys’ Hospital, in London, England.
Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based freelance writer.
A version of this article appeared at Medscape.com.
In the largest head-to-head randomized trial of its kind, UK researchers found transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia (LATP) superior to the transrectal approach in detecting clinically significant cancers.
The TRANSLATE study, with more than 1100 patients, found LATP identified 5.7% more cases of clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as Grade Group 2 or higher, than biopsies using transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS).
Previous research comparing the two techniques has focused mainly on rates of infection rather than cancer detection, said Richard Bryant, PhD, a consultant urologist at Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford in Oxford, England, who led the trial.
“We decided that the most important thing to look at is the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, because that is why the man is having the biopsy in the first place, rather than to avoid infection, although avoiding infection is of course also important,” Bryant said.
Bryant presented the findings at the 2025 annual congress of the European Association of Urology and his group published the results in The Lancet Oncology.
The TRANSLATE trial was powered to identify a difference in the rate of cancer detection but not factors such as pain and sepsis. Hospitalization after biopsies served as a proxy for sepsis.
Men in the trial were nearly twice as likely to report LATP to be problematic immediately after the procedure than those who underwent transrectal biopsies. These issues included pain, discomfort, and embarrassment.
Two of the 562 men in the LATP group were hospitalized within 35 days of the procedure compared with nine of the 564 in the TRUS group. Bryant said this trend favored LATP, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.
The data on infection and other secondary outcomes were encouraging, but not conclusive, Bryant’s group reported.
Richard Szabo, MD, a prostate biopsy researcher at University of California Irvine, said the reduction in post-biopsy sepsis has been “an additional major advantage” of transperineal over transrectal prostate biopsy.
Almost 90% of men who received LATP had the biopsies without antibiotics — a “bonus,” Bryant said.
Antibiotic stewardship is a major factor in research and policies regarding biopsies in Europe. Transperineal biopsies avoid the rectum and pass needles through the perineum between the anus and the testicles, reducing risk for infection.
Jim Hu, MD, a urologic oncology researcher at Weill Cornell in New York City and the principal investigator on the 2024 PREVENT trial, said three of four randomized trials reported in the past year, including PREVENT and TRANSLATE, have found transperineal biopsies resulted in fewer infections than the transrectal method.
European guidelines call transperineal biopsy the preferred approach based on infection concerns, whereas guidance from the American Urological Association gives equal weight to transperineal and transrectal biopsies.
Badar Mian, MD, a urologist at Albany Med Health System in Albany, New York, said the field should “shift our focus from picking a winner to instead focus on whether prostate biopsy procedures are safe and effective. Patients should be reassured that, while there are trade-offs, both procedures can be performed safely and with a high degree of accuracy.”
The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research funded TRANSLATE. Bryant received support from BXTAccelyon to attend biopsy training provided by Guys’ Hospital, in London, England.
Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based freelance writer.
A version of this article appeared at Medscape.com.
A Better Biopsy for Prostate Cancer?
Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies were found for the first time to be “noninferior” to MRI-guided procedures, according to new research presented at the 2025 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.
The OPTIMUM study found 4.5% more clinically significant cancers among men who underwent micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies of the prostate than in those scanned using MRI.
“The take-home message is that men being worked up for an elevated PSA [prostate-specific antigen] or an abnormal digital rectal examination who are at increased risk of prostate cancer may safely undergo a micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy rather than an MRI-guided biopsy,” said Adam Kinnaird, MD, PhD, the Frank and Carla Sojonky Chair in Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and principal investigator of the study.
Micro-ultrasound can image to as small as 70 μm, ie, the width of a human hair.
OPTIMUM was an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial in 20 centers in eight countries of men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, elevated PSAs, abnormal digital rectal exams, or a combination of these risk factors. None of the men previously had undergone biopsies.
The study had three arms to which men were assigned randomly: Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 121); biopsies guided by micro-ultrasound and fusion MRI (n = 226), and MRI plus conventional ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 331).
Subjects had a median age of 65 years and a median PSA level of 6.9 ng/mL; 83% self-identified as White individuals.
“Micro-ultrasound was found to be no worse than MRI at the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. We don’t show it is equivalent. We don’t show it better. We show it is not worse,” Kinnaird said.
The study, funded by Exact Imaging, which makes the ExactVu micro-ultrasound platform, appeared simultaneously in JAMA.
Laurence Klotz, MD, the Sunnybrook Chair of Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Toronto Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and senior researcher on the OPTIMUM trial, said as the incidence of prostate cancer rises globally, micro-ultrasound may be of particular value in low-income and middle-income countries where MRI is not widely available.
“It’s extremely appealing in places that can’t offer MRI to everyone, but I think it also will have a role going forward in regions where there is no problem about getting access to MRI,” Klotz told Medscape Medical News.
This group is next studying the financial aspects of the technology, he added.
Gerald Andriole, MD, then urology chief at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, designed the original studies of the ExactVu system, which the US Food and Drug Administration approved in 2017.
Andriole, now chief medical officer of Prostatype Genomics, said MRIs are costly, subjective, and uncomfortable for many patients, due to claustrophobia and obesity, requiring complicated co-registration procedures to perform an accurate targeted biopsy into the most worrisome regions of the prostate. “Proceeding directly to a micro-ultrasound study avoids these impediments to discovering whether the patient has clinically significant cancer,” he said.
Micro-ultrasound testing involves a single visit to a urologist whereas MRI requires two trips for the patient — one to the urologist and the other to a radiologist, Klotz said. “It’s one-stop shopping,” he said. “So, the patient has his micro-ultrasound. If there’s a target found, he then does the targeted biopsy.”
Klotz said micro-ultrasound helps patients avoid the expense and health risks of gadolinium in contrast with MRIs.
“I don’t think micro-ultrasound is going to replace MRIs,” he said. “I think they’re somewhat complementary. You get cases where they’re visible on MRI and not visible on micro-ultrasound and vice versa.”
The researchers received a grant from Exact Imaging.
A version of this article appeared at Medscape.com.
Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based freelance writer.
Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies were found for the first time to be “noninferior” to MRI-guided procedures, according to new research presented at the 2025 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.
The OPTIMUM study found 4.5% more clinically significant cancers among men who underwent micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies of the prostate than in those scanned using MRI.
“The take-home message is that men being worked up for an elevated PSA [prostate-specific antigen] or an abnormal digital rectal examination who are at increased risk of prostate cancer may safely undergo a micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy rather than an MRI-guided biopsy,” said Adam Kinnaird, MD, PhD, the Frank and Carla Sojonky Chair in Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and principal investigator of the study.
Micro-ultrasound can image to as small as 70 μm, ie, the width of a human hair.
OPTIMUM was an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial in 20 centers in eight countries of men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, elevated PSAs, abnormal digital rectal exams, or a combination of these risk factors. None of the men previously had undergone biopsies.
The study had three arms to which men were assigned randomly: Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 121); biopsies guided by micro-ultrasound and fusion MRI (n = 226), and MRI plus conventional ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 331).
Subjects had a median age of 65 years and a median PSA level of 6.9 ng/mL; 83% self-identified as White individuals.
“Micro-ultrasound was found to be no worse than MRI at the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. We don’t show it is equivalent. We don’t show it better. We show it is not worse,” Kinnaird said.
The study, funded by Exact Imaging, which makes the ExactVu micro-ultrasound platform, appeared simultaneously in JAMA.
Laurence Klotz, MD, the Sunnybrook Chair of Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Toronto Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and senior researcher on the OPTIMUM trial, said as the incidence of prostate cancer rises globally, micro-ultrasound may be of particular value in low-income and middle-income countries where MRI is not widely available.
“It’s extremely appealing in places that can’t offer MRI to everyone, but I think it also will have a role going forward in regions where there is no problem about getting access to MRI,” Klotz told Medscape Medical News.
This group is next studying the financial aspects of the technology, he added.
Gerald Andriole, MD, then urology chief at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, designed the original studies of the ExactVu system, which the US Food and Drug Administration approved in 2017.
Andriole, now chief medical officer of Prostatype Genomics, said MRIs are costly, subjective, and uncomfortable for many patients, due to claustrophobia and obesity, requiring complicated co-registration procedures to perform an accurate targeted biopsy into the most worrisome regions of the prostate. “Proceeding directly to a micro-ultrasound study avoids these impediments to discovering whether the patient has clinically significant cancer,” he said.
Micro-ultrasound testing involves a single visit to a urologist whereas MRI requires two trips for the patient — one to the urologist and the other to a radiologist, Klotz said. “It’s one-stop shopping,” he said. “So, the patient has his micro-ultrasound. If there’s a target found, he then does the targeted biopsy.”
Klotz said micro-ultrasound helps patients avoid the expense and health risks of gadolinium in contrast with MRIs.
“I don’t think micro-ultrasound is going to replace MRIs,” he said. “I think they’re somewhat complementary. You get cases where they’re visible on MRI and not visible on micro-ultrasound and vice versa.”
The researchers received a grant from Exact Imaging.
A version of this article appeared at Medscape.com.
Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based freelance writer.
Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies were found for the first time to be “noninferior” to MRI-guided procedures, according to new research presented at the 2025 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.
The OPTIMUM study found 4.5% more clinically significant cancers among men who underwent micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies of the prostate than in those scanned using MRI.
“The take-home message is that men being worked up for an elevated PSA [prostate-specific antigen] or an abnormal digital rectal examination who are at increased risk of prostate cancer may safely undergo a micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy rather than an MRI-guided biopsy,” said Adam Kinnaird, MD, PhD, the Frank and Carla Sojonky Chair in Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and principal investigator of the study.
Micro-ultrasound can image to as small as 70 μm, ie, the width of a human hair.
OPTIMUM was an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial in 20 centers in eight countries of men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, elevated PSAs, abnormal digital rectal exams, or a combination of these risk factors. None of the men previously had undergone biopsies.
The study had three arms to which men were assigned randomly: Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 121); biopsies guided by micro-ultrasound and fusion MRI (n = 226), and MRI plus conventional ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 331).
Subjects had a median age of 65 years and a median PSA level of 6.9 ng/mL; 83% self-identified as White individuals.
“Micro-ultrasound was found to be no worse than MRI at the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. We don’t show it is equivalent. We don’t show it better. We show it is not worse,” Kinnaird said.
The study, funded by Exact Imaging, which makes the ExactVu micro-ultrasound platform, appeared simultaneously in JAMA.
Laurence Klotz, MD, the Sunnybrook Chair of Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Toronto Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and senior researcher on the OPTIMUM trial, said as the incidence of prostate cancer rises globally, micro-ultrasound may be of particular value in low-income and middle-income countries where MRI is not widely available.
“It’s extremely appealing in places that can’t offer MRI to everyone, but I think it also will have a role going forward in regions where there is no problem about getting access to MRI,” Klotz told Medscape Medical News.
This group is next studying the financial aspects of the technology, he added.
Gerald Andriole, MD, then urology chief at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, designed the original studies of the ExactVu system, which the US Food and Drug Administration approved in 2017.
Andriole, now chief medical officer of Prostatype Genomics, said MRIs are costly, subjective, and uncomfortable for many patients, due to claustrophobia and obesity, requiring complicated co-registration procedures to perform an accurate targeted biopsy into the most worrisome regions of the prostate. “Proceeding directly to a micro-ultrasound study avoids these impediments to discovering whether the patient has clinically significant cancer,” he said.
Micro-ultrasound testing involves a single visit to a urologist whereas MRI requires two trips for the patient — one to the urologist and the other to a radiologist, Klotz said. “It’s one-stop shopping,” he said. “So, the patient has his micro-ultrasound. If there’s a target found, he then does the targeted biopsy.”
Klotz said micro-ultrasound helps patients avoid the expense and health risks of gadolinium in contrast with MRIs.
“I don’t think micro-ultrasound is going to replace MRIs,” he said. “I think they’re somewhat complementary. You get cases where they’re visible on MRI and not visible on micro-ultrasound and vice versa.”
The researchers received a grant from Exact Imaging.
A version of this article appeared at Medscape.com.
Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based freelance writer.
MRI-Invisible Prostate Lesions: Are They Dangerous?
MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.
But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.
MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.
Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.
If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.
Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”
Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.
But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.
Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.
MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.
In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.
Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.
When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.
“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.
The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.
But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”
The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.
According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.
In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.
“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.
Next Steps After Negative MRI Result
What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?
The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.
Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.
The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.
Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.
These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.
Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.”
According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.
Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.
But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.
MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.
Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.
If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.
Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”
Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.
But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.
Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.
MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.
In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.
Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.
When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.
“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.
The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.
But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”
The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.
According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.
In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.
“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.
Next Steps After Negative MRI Result
What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?
The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.
Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.
The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.
Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.
These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.
Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.”
According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.
Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
MRI-invisible prostate lesions. It sounds like the stuff of science fiction and fantasy, a creation from the minds of H.G. Wells, who wrote The Invisible Man, or J.K. Rowling, who authored the Harry Potter series.
But MRI-invisible prostate lesions are real. And what these lesions may, or may not, indicate is the subject of intense debate.
MRI plays an increasingly important role in detecting and diagnosing prostate cancer, staging prostate cancer as well as monitoring disease progression. However, on occasion, a puzzling phenomenon arises. Certain prostate lesions that appear when pathologists examine biopsied tissue samples under a microscope are not visible on MRI. The prostate tissue will, instead, appear normal to a radiologist’s eye.
Some experts believe these MRI-invisible lesions are nothing to worry about.
If the clinician can’t see the cancer on MRI, then it simply isn’t a threat, according to Mark Emberton, MD, a pioneer in prostate MRIs and director of interventional oncology at University College London, England.
Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, agreed, noting that “invisible cancers are clinically insignificant and don’t require systematic biopsies.”
Emberton and Klotz compared MRI-invisible lesions to grade group 1 prostate cancer (Gleason score ≤ 6) — the least aggressive category that indicates the cancer that is not likely to spread or kill. For patients on active surveillance, those with MRI-invisible cancers do drastically better than those with visible cancers, Klotz explained.
But other experts in the field are skeptical that MRI-invisible lesions are truly innocuous.
Although statistically an MRI-visible prostate lesion indicates a more aggressive tumor, that is not always the case for every individual, said Brian Helfand, MD, PhD, chief of urology at NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois.
MRIs can lead to false negatives in about 10%-20% of patients who have clinically significant prostate cancer, though estimates vary.
In one analysis, 16% of men with no suspicious lesions on MRI had clinically significant prostate cancer identified after undergoing a systematic biopsy. Another analysis found that about 35% of MRI-invisible prostate cancers identified via biopsy were clinically significant.
Other studies, however, have indicated that negative MRI results accurately indicate patients at low risk of developing clinically significant cancers. A recent JAMA Oncology analysis, for instance, found that only seven of 233 men (3%) with negative MRI results at baseline who completed 3 years of monitoring were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer.
When a patient has an MRI-invisible prostate tumor, there are a couple of reasons the MRI may not be picking it up, said urologic oncologist Alexander Putnam Cole, MD, assistant professor of surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. “One is that the cancer is aggressive but just very small,” said Cole.
“Another possibility is that the cancer looks very similar to background prostate tissue, which is something that you might expect if you think about more of a low-grade cancer,” he explained.
The experience level of the radiologist interpreting the MRI can also play into the accuracy of the reading.
But Cole agreed that “in general, MRI visibility is associated with molecular and histologic features of progression and aggressiveness and non-visible cancers are less likely to have aggressive features.”
The genomic profiles of MRI-visible and -invisible cancers bear this out.
According to Todd Morgan, MD, chief of urologic oncology at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the gene expression in visible disease tends to be linked to more aggressive prostate tumors whereas gene expression in invisible disease does not.
In one analysis, for instance, researchers found that four genes — PHYHD1, CENPF, ALDH2, and GDF15 — associated with worse progression-free survival and metastasis-free survival in prostate cancer also predicted MRI visibility.
“Genes that are associated with visibility are essentially the same genes that are associated with aggressive cancers,” Klotz said.
Next Steps After Negative MRI Result
What do MRI-invisible lesions mean for patient care? If, for instance, a patient has elevated PSA levels but a normal MRI, is a targeted or systematic biopsy warranted?
The overarching message, according to Klotz, is that “you don’t need to find them.” Klotz noted, however, that patients with a negative MRI result should still be followed with periodic repeat imaging.
Several trials support this approach of using MRI to decide who needs a biopsy and delaying a biopsy in men with normal MRIs.
The recent JAMA Oncology analysis found that, among men with negative MRI results, 86% avoided a biopsy over 3 years, with clinically significant prostate cancer detected in only 4% of men across the study period — four in the initial diagnostic phase and seven in the 3-year monitoring phase. However, during the initial diagnostic phase, more than half the men with positive MRI findings had clinically significant prostate cancer detected.
Another recent study found that patients with negative MRI results were much less likely to upgrade to higher Gleason scores over time. Among 522 patients who underwent a systematic and targeted biopsy within 18 months of their grade group 1 designation, 9.2% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 2 or higher vs 27% with positive MRI findings, and 2.3% with negative MRI findings had tumors reclassified as grade group 3 or higher vs 7.8% with positive MRI findings.
These data suggest that men with grade group 1 cancer and negative MRI result “may be able to avoid confirmatory biopsies until a routine surveillance biopsy in 2-3 years,” according to study author Christian Pavlovich, MD, professor of urologic oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Cole used MRI findings to triage who gets a biopsy. When a biopsy is warranted, “I usually recommend adding in some systematic sampling of the other side to assess for nonvisible cancers,” he noted.
Sampling prostate tissue outside the target area “adds maybe 1-2 minutes to the procedure and doesn’t drastically increase the morbidity or risks,” Cole said. It also can help “confirm there is cancer in the MRI target and also confirm there is no cancer in the nonvisible areas.”
According to Klotz, if imaging demonstrates progression, patients should receive a biopsy — in most cases, a targeted biopsy only. And, Klotz noted, skipping routine prostate biopsies in men with negative MRI results can save thousands of men from these procedures, which carry risks for infections and sepsis.
Looking beyond Gleason scores for risk prediction, MRI “visibility is a very powerful risk stratifier,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Artera Launches AI Test for Decision-Making on Prostate Cancer Treatment Course
Artera, the Los Altos, California–based developer of tools to diagnose cancer, has launched the first artificial intelligence (AI) test to guide patients in making informed decisions between active surveillance and active treatment based on an analysis of digital pathology images.
Trevor Royce, MD, MPH, senior medical director of Artera, said the new version of the ArteraAI Prostate Test helps patients with low-risk (Grade Group 1/Gleason 6) to favorable intermediate-risk (Grade Group 2/Gleason 3+4) prostate cancer choose between treatment or active surveillance.
The test estimates how a patient’s cancer may progress and predicts the benefit of treatment for localized prostate cancer.
“The prognostic performance of the test has now been validated in a diverse cohort of patients, including those who have undergone active surveillance, radiation therapy, or had a radical prostatectomy,” said Dr. Royce, a faculty member in radiation oncology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “The prognostic risk result reflects the patient’s prognosis regardless of the treatment path chosen.”
Dr. Royce said the new test predicts the risk for developing distant metastasis in 10 years. For the population considering active surveillance, it also can predict the likelihood their cancer will show more aggressive features. The test does not make a clinical recommendation, he added.
“Ultimately, that’s a very personal decision between the patient and their physician, and we view it as supporting that decision-making process,” he said.
The test is available in all states but New York and California, where the company is now, in discussions with regulators for approval, according to Dr. Royce. He said the company is in discussion with private insurers to set reimbursement and payment rates. In January 2024, Medicare set a payment rate of $700 for the AI test, which carries no out-of-pocket costs for patients.
The first indication for the test was for localized prostate cancer, prognosticating the risk for distant metastases and death from prostate cancer. It can also predict if an individual will benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dr. Royce said up to 60% of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer now can avoid ADT and its serious side effects, such as brain fog, weight gain, and reduction in muscle mass.
In March, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of 33 cancer centers included Artera as the first AI test in its Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.
Dr. Royce said active surveillance is a new application of the test. The test was initially developed on a foundational study of almost 22,000 pathology slides from nearly 7000 patients published in npj Digital Medicine in 2022.
Todd Morgan, MD, chief of the Division of Urologic Oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the foundational study, said the AI test adds another layer of data to making clinical decisions for lower-risk patients.
“The technology is a big deal. The ability to use digital images to make accurate prognostic estimates is pretty remarkable, and this is the first test in any disease site to do this,” Dr. Morgan said. “Ultimately, this means tests may someday be performed by just sending images rather than sending actual tissue to an outside laboratory. Is the AI test dramatically more accurate than the genomic platforms? That’s TBD [to be determined].”
Dr. Royce said Artera is now working on a version of its test to inform men with higher-risk prostate cancer how long ADT should last and what the prognosis is for patients who have undergone prostatectomy based on their surgical specimen. The current test uses samples from the prostate biopsy, which are processed in a central lab.
Dr. Royce said the company would like to eventually perform the test using digital images of pathology slides only.
Dr. Morgan reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Artera, the Los Altos, California–based developer of tools to diagnose cancer, has launched the first artificial intelligence (AI) test to guide patients in making informed decisions between active surveillance and active treatment based on an analysis of digital pathology images.
Trevor Royce, MD, MPH, senior medical director of Artera, said the new version of the ArteraAI Prostate Test helps patients with low-risk (Grade Group 1/Gleason 6) to favorable intermediate-risk (Grade Group 2/Gleason 3+4) prostate cancer choose between treatment or active surveillance.
The test estimates how a patient’s cancer may progress and predicts the benefit of treatment for localized prostate cancer.
“The prognostic performance of the test has now been validated in a diverse cohort of patients, including those who have undergone active surveillance, radiation therapy, or had a radical prostatectomy,” said Dr. Royce, a faculty member in radiation oncology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “The prognostic risk result reflects the patient’s prognosis regardless of the treatment path chosen.”
Dr. Royce said the new test predicts the risk for developing distant metastasis in 10 years. For the population considering active surveillance, it also can predict the likelihood their cancer will show more aggressive features. The test does not make a clinical recommendation, he added.
“Ultimately, that’s a very personal decision between the patient and their physician, and we view it as supporting that decision-making process,” he said.
The test is available in all states but New York and California, where the company is now, in discussions with regulators for approval, according to Dr. Royce. He said the company is in discussion with private insurers to set reimbursement and payment rates. In January 2024, Medicare set a payment rate of $700 for the AI test, which carries no out-of-pocket costs for patients.
The first indication for the test was for localized prostate cancer, prognosticating the risk for distant metastases and death from prostate cancer. It can also predict if an individual will benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dr. Royce said up to 60% of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer now can avoid ADT and its serious side effects, such as brain fog, weight gain, and reduction in muscle mass.
In March, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of 33 cancer centers included Artera as the first AI test in its Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.
Dr. Royce said active surveillance is a new application of the test. The test was initially developed on a foundational study of almost 22,000 pathology slides from nearly 7000 patients published in npj Digital Medicine in 2022.
Todd Morgan, MD, chief of the Division of Urologic Oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the foundational study, said the AI test adds another layer of data to making clinical decisions for lower-risk patients.
“The technology is a big deal. The ability to use digital images to make accurate prognostic estimates is pretty remarkable, and this is the first test in any disease site to do this,” Dr. Morgan said. “Ultimately, this means tests may someday be performed by just sending images rather than sending actual tissue to an outside laboratory. Is the AI test dramatically more accurate than the genomic platforms? That’s TBD [to be determined].”
Dr. Royce said Artera is now working on a version of its test to inform men with higher-risk prostate cancer how long ADT should last and what the prognosis is for patients who have undergone prostatectomy based on their surgical specimen. The current test uses samples from the prostate biopsy, which are processed in a central lab.
Dr. Royce said the company would like to eventually perform the test using digital images of pathology slides only.
Dr. Morgan reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Artera, the Los Altos, California–based developer of tools to diagnose cancer, has launched the first artificial intelligence (AI) test to guide patients in making informed decisions between active surveillance and active treatment based on an analysis of digital pathology images.
Trevor Royce, MD, MPH, senior medical director of Artera, said the new version of the ArteraAI Prostate Test helps patients with low-risk (Grade Group 1/Gleason 6) to favorable intermediate-risk (Grade Group 2/Gleason 3+4) prostate cancer choose between treatment or active surveillance.
The test estimates how a patient’s cancer may progress and predicts the benefit of treatment for localized prostate cancer.
“The prognostic performance of the test has now been validated in a diverse cohort of patients, including those who have undergone active surveillance, radiation therapy, or had a radical prostatectomy,” said Dr. Royce, a faculty member in radiation oncology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “The prognostic risk result reflects the patient’s prognosis regardless of the treatment path chosen.”
Dr. Royce said the new test predicts the risk for developing distant metastasis in 10 years. For the population considering active surveillance, it also can predict the likelihood their cancer will show more aggressive features. The test does not make a clinical recommendation, he added.
“Ultimately, that’s a very personal decision between the patient and their physician, and we view it as supporting that decision-making process,” he said.
The test is available in all states but New York and California, where the company is now, in discussions with regulators for approval, according to Dr. Royce. He said the company is in discussion with private insurers to set reimbursement and payment rates. In January 2024, Medicare set a payment rate of $700 for the AI test, which carries no out-of-pocket costs for patients.
The first indication for the test was for localized prostate cancer, prognosticating the risk for distant metastases and death from prostate cancer. It can also predict if an individual will benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Dr. Royce said up to 60% of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer now can avoid ADT and its serious side effects, such as brain fog, weight gain, and reduction in muscle mass.
In March, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of 33 cancer centers included Artera as the first AI test in its Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.
Dr. Royce said active surveillance is a new application of the test. The test was initially developed on a foundational study of almost 22,000 pathology slides from nearly 7000 patients published in npj Digital Medicine in 2022.
Todd Morgan, MD, chief of the Division of Urologic Oncology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and coauthor of the foundational study, said the AI test adds another layer of data to making clinical decisions for lower-risk patients.
“The technology is a big deal. The ability to use digital images to make accurate prognostic estimates is pretty remarkable, and this is the first test in any disease site to do this,” Dr. Morgan said. “Ultimately, this means tests may someday be performed by just sending images rather than sending actual tissue to an outside laboratory. Is the AI test dramatically more accurate than the genomic platforms? That’s TBD [to be determined].”
Dr. Royce said Artera is now working on a version of its test to inform men with higher-risk prostate cancer how long ADT should last and what the prognosis is for patients who have undergone prostatectomy based on their surgical specimen. The current test uses samples from the prostate biopsy, which are processed in a central lab.
Dr. Royce said the company would like to eventually perform the test using digital images of pathology slides only.
Dr. Morgan reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High-Dose Prednisone Can Reduce Rate of Pregnancy Post-Vasectomy
In the first randomized controlled trial of prednisone for postvasectomy reversals, fertility researchers found that a high dose of the steroid reduced the rate of subsequent pregnancy.
“This is the first time it’s been shown that high doses [of prednisone] can make someone infertile,” said Landon Trost, MD, director of the Male Fertility and Peyronie’s Clinic in Orem, Utah, and a faculty member at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota, who presented the study (Abstract MP42-19) on May 4 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) in San Antonio, Texas.
Dr. Trost called the findings “a real shock. I almost didn’t believe the data when I saw it. It opens up a whole new set of areas for research and exploration.”
Dr. Trost’s clinic performs 1200 reversals per year out of the estimated 20,000 performed annually in the United States, he said. He said his practice has stopped using high-dose prednisone as a result of the study, which he performed at his own expense to examine the varying protocols for vasectomy reversal.
William Berg, MD, director of the Stony Brook Urology Men’s Health Program, in Stony Brook, New York, said that the expected patency rate for modern postvasectomy reversals, if performed properly, can be as high as 98%. However, in some men, patency occurs initially, but the accumulation of scar tissue at the site of reversal causes sperm counts in ejaculate to drop to zero.
Since the 1970s, urologists — with limited research to back — the practice prescribed prednisone to patients with the goal of preventing scarring and blockages associated with vasectomy reversals. Dr. Berg called this practice “unsubstantiated” and noted that Dr. Trost’s study is the first prospective randomized controlled trial of this approach.
The study enrolled 75 men, with a mean age of roughly 38 years. The mean time since vasectomy was 6.6 years.
The low-dose arm (25 patients) received 5 mg of prednisone per week alternating with no treatment per week over 6 months. The high-dose arm (n = 14) received 20 mg of prednisone, tapered to 10 mg, 5 mg, and then off over 1 month, followed by every other month for 6 months. A prednisone-as-needed group (n = 11) received a tapered course of prednisone on the basis of whether they had decreasing or zero sperm counts. They received 20 mg for 5 days, 10 mg for 5 days, and 5 mg for 20 days.
A control arm (n = 25) received no prednisone.
Urologists typically use patency rates to measure success of vasectomy reversals. The patency rates at 12 months in Dr. Trost’s study were 100% in the control participants, prednisone-as-needed, and low-dose groups and 92% (13/14) in the high-dose group.
Dr. Trost said that the story was told in the pregnancy rates. At the 1-year mark, pregnancy rates were 67% in the low-risk group and 65% in the control group but 38% and 17% in the prednisone-as-needed and high-dose group, respectively (P = .02).
The mean maximum sperm concentration was 40 million per mL, ranging from 29.7 million per mL for men in the control group to 54.3 million per mL in the low-dose group.
Dr. Trost said that he immediately stopped using high doses of prednisone in his practice and predicted that other clinics would follow suit.
Dr. Berg said the drop in pregnancies with higher doses of prednisone is a first-time finding and suggests that a high dose may “be detrimental to sperm function in some way. I don’t think this ever has been described before.”
Dr. Trost financed the study himself. Dr. Berg reported no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the first randomized controlled trial of prednisone for postvasectomy reversals, fertility researchers found that a high dose of the steroid reduced the rate of subsequent pregnancy.
“This is the first time it’s been shown that high doses [of prednisone] can make someone infertile,” said Landon Trost, MD, director of the Male Fertility and Peyronie’s Clinic in Orem, Utah, and a faculty member at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota, who presented the study (Abstract MP42-19) on May 4 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) in San Antonio, Texas.
Dr. Trost called the findings “a real shock. I almost didn’t believe the data when I saw it. It opens up a whole new set of areas for research and exploration.”
Dr. Trost’s clinic performs 1200 reversals per year out of the estimated 20,000 performed annually in the United States, he said. He said his practice has stopped using high-dose prednisone as a result of the study, which he performed at his own expense to examine the varying protocols for vasectomy reversal.
William Berg, MD, director of the Stony Brook Urology Men’s Health Program, in Stony Brook, New York, said that the expected patency rate for modern postvasectomy reversals, if performed properly, can be as high as 98%. However, in some men, patency occurs initially, but the accumulation of scar tissue at the site of reversal causes sperm counts in ejaculate to drop to zero.
Since the 1970s, urologists — with limited research to back — the practice prescribed prednisone to patients with the goal of preventing scarring and blockages associated with vasectomy reversals. Dr. Berg called this practice “unsubstantiated” and noted that Dr. Trost’s study is the first prospective randomized controlled trial of this approach.
The study enrolled 75 men, with a mean age of roughly 38 years. The mean time since vasectomy was 6.6 years.
The low-dose arm (25 patients) received 5 mg of prednisone per week alternating with no treatment per week over 6 months. The high-dose arm (n = 14) received 20 mg of prednisone, tapered to 10 mg, 5 mg, and then off over 1 month, followed by every other month for 6 months. A prednisone-as-needed group (n = 11) received a tapered course of prednisone on the basis of whether they had decreasing or zero sperm counts. They received 20 mg for 5 days, 10 mg for 5 days, and 5 mg for 20 days.
A control arm (n = 25) received no prednisone.
Urologists typically use patency rates to measure success of vasectomy reversals. The patency rates at 12 months in Dr. Trost’s study were 100% in the control participants, prednisone-as-needed, and low-dose groups and 92% (13/14) in the high-dose group.
Dr. Trost said that the story was told in the pregnancy rates. At the 1-year mark, pregnancy rates were 67% in the low-risk group and 65% in the control group but 38% and 17% in the prednisone-as-needed and high-dose group, respectively (P = .02).
The mean maximum sperm concentration was 40 million per mL, ranging from 29.7 million per mL for men in the control group to 54.3 million per mL in the low-dose group.
Dr. Trost said that he immediately stopped using high doses of prednisone in his practice and predicted that other clinics would follow suit.
Dr. Berg said the drop in pregnancies with higher doses of prednisone is a first-time finding and suggests that a high dose may “be detrimental to sperm function in some way. I don’t think this ever has been described before.”
Dr. Trost financed the study himself. Dr. Berg reported no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the first randomized controlled trial of prednisone for postvasectomy reversals, fertility researchers found that a high dose of the steroid reduced the rate of subsequent pregnancy.
“This is the first time it’s been shown that high doses [of prednisone] can make someone infertile,” said Landon Trost, MD, director of the Male Fertility and Peyronie’s Clinic in Orem, Utah, and a faculty member at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota, who presented the study (Abstract MP42-19) on May 4 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA) in San Antonio, Texas.
Dr. Trost called the findings “a real shock. I almost didn’t believe the data when I saw it. It opens up a whole new set of areas for research and exploration.”
Dr. Trost’s clinic performs 1200 reversals per year out of the estimated 20,000 performed annually in the United States, he said. He said his practice has stopped using high-dose prednisone as a result of the study, which he performed at his own expense to examine the varying protocols for vasectomy reversal.
William Berg, MD, director of the Stony Brook Urology Men’s Health Program, in Stony Brook, New York, said that the expected patency rate for modern postvasectomy reversals, if performed properly, can be as high as 98%. However, in some men, patency occurs initially, but the accumulation of scar tissue at the site of reversal causes sperm counts in ejaculate to drop to zero.
Since the 1970s, urologists — with limited research to back — the practice prescribed prednisone to patients with the goal of preventing scarring and blockages associated with vasectomy reversals. Dr. Berg called this practice “unsubstantiated” and noted that Dr. Trost’s study is the first prospective randomized controlled trial of this approach.
The study enrolled 75 men, with a mean age of roughly 38 years. The mean time since vasectomy was 6.6 years.
The low-dose arm (25 patients) received 5 mg of prednisone per week alternating with no treatment per week over 6 months. The high-dose arm (n = 14) received 20 mg of prednisone, tapered to 10 mg, 5 mg, and then off over 1 month, followed by every other month for 6 months. A prednisone-as-needed group (n = 11) received a tapered course of prednisone on the basis of whether they had decreasing or zero sperm counts. They received 20 mg for 5 days, 10 mg for 5 days, and 5 mg for 20 days.
A control arm (n = 25) received no prednisone.
Urologists typically use patency rates to measure success of vasectomy reversals. The patency rates at 12 months in Dr. Trost’s study were 100% in the control participants, prednisone-as-needed, and low-dose groups and 92% (13/14) in the high-dose group.
Dr. Trost said that the story was told in the pregnancy rates. At the 1-year mark, pregnancy rates were 67% in the low-risk group and 65% in the control group but 38% and 17% in the prednisone-as-needed and high-dose group, respectively (P = .02).
The mean maximum sperm concentration was 40 million per mL, ranging from 29.7 million per mL for men in the control group to 54.3 million per mL in the low-dose group.
Dr. Trost said that he immediately stopped using high doses of prednisone in his practice and predicted that other clinics would follow suit.
Dr. Berg said the drop in pregnancies with higher doses of prednisone is a first-time finding and suggests that a high dose may “be detrimental to sperm function in some way. I don’t think this ever has been described before.”
Dr. Trost financed the study himself. Dr. Berg reported no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AUA 2024
Office Procedure Found to Get Stone Fragments Rolling
An experimental handheld ultrasonic device used in an office setting was shown to guide residual kidney stone fragments out of the body and markedly reduce the risk for relapse, researchers reported (Abstract MP29-10) at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association AUA in San Antonio, Texas.
Mathew Sorensen, MD, MS, an associate professor of urology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the Comprehensive Metabolic Stone Clinic at the Puget Sound VA, said that the risk for relapse of kidney stones was 70% lower in the treatment group than in the control group.
“This is an ultrasound-based propulsion procedure that is not like anything else that has ever existed. There’s nothing else that’s like it,” Dr. Sorensen said. “Essentially, in a session in the office with no anesthesia, we can use ultrasound energy to focus on those fragments and try to push them out of the unfavorable areas of the kidney.”
Roughly 20%-30% of patients who undergo surgery to remove kidney stones have residual fragments that can ultimately cause pain and send them to the emergency department or into hospital admission for treatment.
In the new study, 82 patients with stone fragments ≤ 5 mm were randomly assigned to receive the ultrasound treatment — which Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues developed over the past decade — or no procedure.
During a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 20% of patients in the treatment group experienced relapse of stones compared with 50% of patients in the control group.
Relapse was measured as the future occurrence of urgent medical visits for stone-related symptoms, surgeries, or growth of the residual fragments as measured on annual CT.
Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues found asymptomatic passage of fragments was twelvefold higher in the treatment group in the first 3 weeks (60% vs 5%). Asymptomatic passage was similar in both groups after 3 weeks.
Dr. Sorensen said that mild discomfort after the procedure was common, occurring in 38% of patients who underwent the treatment, but that it was short-lived and resolved without intervention; 8% of the treatment group and 7% of the control group had blood in the urine.
The propulsion device is available at two test sites in the University of Washington system; the manufacturer, SonoMotion Inc, a spinoff from the institution, is seeking US Food and Drug Administration approval for the technology, Dr. Sorensen said.
David Schulsinger, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Urology at Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, said that patients with stone fragments currently have two options: follow-up surgery or active surveillance.
“With this new device, we actually have the potential for doing one other thing, and that is treating these patients noninvasively and without anesthesia,” Dr. Schulsinger said. “Once it’s ready for prime time, I think [ultrasonic propulsion] will be very well accepted among urologists to manage patients with asymptomatic residual stones.”
Dr. Sorensen is an advisor and equity holder in SonoMotion Inc. Dr. Schulsinger reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An experimental handheld ultrasonic device used in an office setting was shown to guide residual kidney stone fragments out of the body and markedly reduce the risk for relapse, researchers reported (Abstract MP29-10) at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association AUA in San Antonio, Texas.
Mathew Sorensen, MD, MS, an associate professor of urology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the Comprehensive Metabolic Stone Clinic at the Puget Sound VA, said that the risk for relapse of kidney stones was 70% lower in the treatment group than in the control group.
“This is an ultrasound-based propulsion procedure that is not like anything else that has ever existed. There’s nothing else that’s like it,” Dr. Sorensen said. “Essentially, in a session in the office with no anesthesia, we can use ultrasound energy to focus on those fragments and try to push them out of the unfavorable areas of the kidney.”
Roughly 20%-30% of patients who undergo surgery to remove kidney stones have residual fragments that can ultimately cause pain and send them to the emergency department or into hospital admission for treatment.
In the new study, 82 patients with stone fragments ≤ 5 mm were randomly assigned to receive the ultrasound treatment — which Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues developed over the past decade — or no procedure.
During a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 20% of patients in the treatment group experienced relapse of stones compared with 50% of patients in the control group.
Relapse was measured as the future occurrence of urgent medical visits for stone-related symptoms, surgeries, or growth of the residual fragments as measured on annual CT.
Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues found asymptomatic passage of fragments was twelvefold higher in the treatment group in the first 3 weeks (60% vs 5%). Asymptomatic passage was similar in both groups after 3 weeks.
Dr. Sorensen said that mild discomfort after the procedure was common, occurring in 38% of patients who underwent the treatment, but that it was short-lived and resolved without intervention; 8% of the treatment group and 7% of the control group had blood in the urine.
The propulsion device is available at two test sites in the University of Washington system; the manufacturer, SonoMotion Inc, a spinoff from the institution, is seeking US Food and Drug Administration approval for the technology, Dr. Sorensen said.
David Schulsinger, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Urology at Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, said that patients with stone fragments currently have two options: follow-up surgery or active surveillance.
“With this new device, we actually have the potential for doing one other thing, and that is treating these patients noninvasively and without anesthesia,” Dr. Schulsinger said. “Once it’s ready for prime time, I think [ultrasonic propulsion] will be very well accepted among urologists to manage patients with asymptomatic residual stones.”
Dr. Sorensen is an advisor and equity holder in SonoMotion Inc. Dr. Schulsinger reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An experimental handheld ultrasonic device used in an office setting was shown to guide residual kidney stone fragments out of the body and markedly reduce the risk for relapse, researchers reported (Abstract MP29-10) at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association AUA in San Antonio, Texas.
Mathew Sorensen, MD, MS, an associate professor of urology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the Comprehensive Metabolic Stone Clinic at the Puget Sound VA, said that the risk for relapse of kidney stones was 70% lower in the treatment group than in the control group.
“This is an ultrasound-based propulsion procedure that is not like anything else that has ever existed. There’s nothing else that’s like it,” Dr. Sorensen said. “Essentially, in a session in the office with no anesthesia, we can use ultrasound energy to focus on those fragments and try to push them out of the unfavorable areas of the kidney.”
Roughly 20%-30% of patients who undergo surgery to remove kidney stones have residual fragments that can ultimately cause pain and send them to the emergency department or into hospital admission for treatment.
In the new study, 82 patients with stone fragments ≤ 5 mm were randomly assigned to receive the ultrasound treatment — which Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues developed over the past decade — or no procedure.
During a median follow-up of 2.6 years, 20% of patients in the treatment group experienced relapse of stones compared with 50% of patients in the control group.
Relapse was measured as the future occurrence of urgent medical visits for stone-related symptoms, surgeries, or growth of the residual fragments as measured on annual CT.
Dr. Sorensen and his colleagues found asymptomatic passage of fragments was twelvefold higher in the treatment group in the first 3 weeks (60% vs 5%). Asymptomatic passage was similar in both groups after 3 weeks.
Dr. Sorensen said that mild discomfort after the procedure was common, occurring in 38% of patients who underwent the treatment, but that it was short-lived and resolved without intervention; 8% of the treatment group and 7% of the control group had blood in the urine.
The propulsion device is available at two test sites in the University of Washington system; the manufacturer, SonoMotion Inc, a spinoff from the institution, is seeking US Food and Drug Administration approval for the technology, Dr. Sorensen said.
David Schulsinger, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Urology at Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, New York, said that patients with stone fragments currently have two options: follow-up surgery or active surveillance.
“With this new device, we actually have the potential for doing one other thing, and that is treating these patients noninvasively and without anesthesia,” Dr. Schulsinger said. “Once it’s ready for prime time, I think [ultrasonic propulsion] will be very well accepted among urologists to manage patients with asymptomatic residual stones.”
Dr. Sorensen is an advisor and equity holder in SonoMotion Inc. Dr. Schulsinger reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AUA 2024
OTC Solution for Erectile Dysfunction?
Up to 60% of men with erectile dysfunction who were not candidates for phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors achieved erections in less than 10 minutes after a single application of a first-on-the-market nonprescription gel to the glans, a new study found.
Wayne Hellstrom, MD, chief of andrology at Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, who presented the study of MED3000 [Eroxon] on May 5 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association in San Antonio, Texas, said that the gel is considered to be a device by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency approved the product in June 2023.
A spokesman for Futura, which makes MED3000, said that the gel will be on the market 2025. No price for the United States has been announced, but a four-pack of single-use tubes sells for the equivalent of roughly $31 in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Hellstrom, a former adviser to Futura, he said he expects MED3000 will be “a potential first-line therapy in addition to PDE5 inhibitors,” which are vasodilating drugs that stimulate the corpora cavernosa of the penis, facilitating erection with sexual stimulation.
He noted that PDE5s are contraindicated for many men; are not tolerated in others; are not completely effective; or work too slowly, taking 1-2 hours to work. As a result, up to 50% of patients cease using a PDE5 inhibitor within 1 year, he said.
Futura said the gel contains a combination of volatile solvents which, when applied to the head of the penis, evaporate rapidly, stimulating nerve endings through an initial cooling effect followed by a warming sensation. This reaction releases nitric oxide, relaxing the smooth muscle tissue inside the penis and increasing blood flow that is needed to obtain an erection.
Dr. Hellstrom noted that MED3000 is noninvasive and causes no side effects and is slightly more effective if applied by a partner.
The new findings come from two studies of 250 men with erectile dysfunction (FM57) who used MED3000 over 12 weeks and a randomly assigned arm (FM71) with two groups of 48 men who used either MED3000 or 5 mg of tadalafil over 24 weeks.
Erections were achieved in less than 10 minutes in 60.1% of men in the FM57 group and 44.9% of those in the FM71 group.
Overall, less than 2% of the men who usedMED3000 and 4% of those who took tadalafil reported adverse effects. These events included headaches in 3% of the combined MED3000 group and 19.1% of the tadalafil group. Roughly 1% of men who used MED3000 reported penile burning sensation compared with none in the group taking tadalafil.
Problematic Design?
Kevin McVary, MD, a professor of urology at Stritch School of Medicine of Loyola University, outside of Chicago, and director of the Center for Male Health, criticized the study design and added that he did not believe MED3000 had been proven beneficial.
“Are they expecting the Cialis 5 mg to work within 10 minutes? Because it doesn’t,” Dr. McVary said. “It doesn’t get absorbed into the bloodstream for about 2.5 hours.”
Dr. McVary said that men with erectile dysfunction will probably do anything to avoid seeing a physician about the condition, which could make MED3000 highly marketable.
However, he said, examinations would be important to detect unrecognized underlying cardiac disease, especially in younger men. “ED can function as the classic canary in a coal mine where it tells you who’s at risk for unexpected early death,” he said.
Dr. Hellstrom is a former adviser to Futura Medical Developments, which funded the research. Dr. McVary reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Up to 60% of men with erectile dysfunction who were not candidates for phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors achieved erections in less than 10 minutes after a single application of a first-on-the-market nonprescription gel to the glans, a new study found.
Wayne Hellstrom, MD, chief of andrology at Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, who presented the study of MED3000 [Eroxon] on May 5 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association in San Antonio, Texas, said that the gel is considered to be a device by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency approved the product in June 2023.
A spokesman for Futura, which makes MED3000, said that the gel will be on the market 2025. No price for the United States has been announced, but a four-pack of single-use tubes sells for the equivalent of roughly $31 in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Hellstrom, a former adviser to Futura, he said he expects MED3000 will be “a potential first-line therapy in addition to PDE5 inhibitors,” which are vasodilating drugs that stimulate the corpora cavernosa of the penis, facilitating erection with sexual stimulation.
He noted that PDE5s are contraindicated for many men; are not tolerated in others; are not completely effective; or work too slowly, taking 1-2 hours to work. As a result, up to 50% of patients cease using a PDE5 inhibitor within 1 year, he said.
Futura said the gel contains a combination of volatile solvents which, when applied to the head of the penis, evaporate rapidly, stimulating nerve endings through an initial cooling effect followed by a warming sensation. This reaction releases nitric oxide, relaxing the smooth muscle tissue inside the penis and increasing blood flow that is needed to obtain an erection.
Dr. Hellstrom noted that MED3000 is noninvasive and causes no side effects and is slightly more effective if applied by a partner.
The new findings come from two studies of 250 men with erectile dysfunction (FM57) who used MED3000 over 12 weeks and a randomly assigned arm (FM71) with two groups of 48 men who used either MED3000 or 5 mg of tadalafil over 24 weeks.
Erections were achieved in less than 10 minutes in 60.1% of men in the FM57 group and 44.9% of those in the FM71 group.
Overall, less than 2% of the men who usedMED3000 and 4% of those who took tadalafil reported adverse effects. These events included headaches in 3% of the combined MED3000 group and 19.1% of the tadalafil group. Roughly 1% of men who used MED3000 reported penile burning sensation compared with none in the group taking tadalafil.
Problematic Design?
Kevin McVary, MD, a professor of urology at Stritch School of Medicine of Loyola University, outside of Chicago, and director of the Center for Male Health, criticized the study design and added that he did not believe MED3000 had been proven beneficial.
“Are they expecting the Cialis 5 mg to work within 10 minutes? Because it doesn’t,” Dr. McVary said. “It doesn’t get absorbed into the bloodstream for about 2.5 hours.”
Dr. McVary said that men with erectile dysfunction will probably do anything to avoid seeing a physician about the condition, which could make MED3000 highly marketable.
However, he said, examinations would be important to detect unrecognized underlying cardiac disease, especially in younger men. “ED can function as the classic canary in a coal mine where it tells you who’s at risk for unexpected early death,” he said.
Dr. Hellstrom is a former adviser to Futura Medical Developments, which funded the research. Dr. McVary reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Up to 60% of men with erectile dysfunction who were not candidates for phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibitors achieved erections in less than 10 minutes after a single application of a first-on-the-market nonprescription gel to the glans, a new study found.
Wayne Hellstrom, MD, chief of andrology at Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, who presented the study of MED3000 [Eroxon] on May 5 at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Urological Association in San Antonio, Texas, said that the gel is considered to be a device by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency approved the product in June 2023.
A spokesman for Futura, which makes MED3000, said that the gel will be on the market 2025. No price for the United States has been announced, but a four-pack of single-use tubes sells for the equivalent of roughly $31 in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Hellstrom, a former adviser to Futura, he said he expects MED3000 will be “a potential first-line therapy in addition to PDE5 inhibitors,” which are vasodilating drugs that stimulate the corpora cavernosa of the penis, facilitating erection with sexual stimulation.
He noted that PDE5s are contraindicated for many men; are not tolerated in others; are not completely effective; or work too slowly, taking 1-2 hours to work. As a result, up to 50% of patients cease using a PDE5 inhibitor within 1 year, he said.
Futura said the gel contains a combination of volatile solvents which, when applied to the head of the penis, evaporate rapidly, stimulating nerve endings through an initial cooling effect followed by a warming sensation. This reaction releases nitric oxide, relaxing the smooth muscle tissue inside the penis and increasing blood flow that is needed to obtain an erection.
Dr. Hellstrom noted that MED3000 is noninvasive and causes no side effects and is slightly more effective if applied by a partner.
The new findings come from two studies of 250 men with erectile dysfunction (FM57) who used MED3000 over 12 weeks and a randomly assigned arm (FM71) with two groups of 48 men who used either MED3000 or 5 mg of tadalafil over 24 weeks.
Erections were achieved in less than 10 minutes in 60.1% of men in the FM57 group and 44.9% of those in the FM71 group.
Overall, less than 2% of the men who usedMED3000 and 4% of those who took tadalafil reported adverse effects. These events included headaches in 3% of the combined MED3000 group and 19.1% of the tadalafil group. Roughly 1% of men who used MED3000 reported penile burning sensation compared with none in the group taking tadalafil.
Problematic Design?
Kevin McVary, MD, a professor of urology at Stritch School of Medicine of Loyola University, outside of Chicago, and director of the Center for Male Health, criticized the study design and added that he did not believe MED3000 had been proven beneficial.
“Are they expecting the Cialis 5 mg to work within 10 minutes? Because it doesn’t,” Dr. McVary said. “It doesn’t get absorbed into the bloodstream for about 2.5 hours.”
Dr. McVary said that men with erectile dysfunction will probably do anything to avoid seeing a physician about the condition, which could make MED3000 highly marketable.
However, he said, examinations would be important to detect unrecognized underlying cardiac disease, especially in younger men. “ED can function as the classic canary in a coal mine where it tells you who’s at risk for unexpected early death,” he said.
Dr. Hellstrom is a former adviser to Futura Medical Developments, which funded the research. Dr. McVary reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Prostate Cancer Tsunami Coming, Experts Caution
An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.
At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.
Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.
Dr. James told this news organization.
“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”
According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”
Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.
“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”
Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.
Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.
Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.
Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.
In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London.
“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.
He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.
“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.
In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”
Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.
At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.
Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.
Dr. James told this news organization.
“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”
According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”
Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.
“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”
Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.
Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.
Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.
Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.
In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London.
“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.
He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.
“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.
In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”
Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.
At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.
Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.
Dr. James told this news organization.
“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”
According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”
Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.
“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”
Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.
Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.
Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.
Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.
In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London.
“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.
He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.
“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.
In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”
Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Evidence-Based or Oversold?
In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped.
Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions.
Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.
Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.
Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age.
Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.
At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.
Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.
That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said.
— Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy.
But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.
As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs.
No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.
Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques.
“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.
“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said.
Evidence-Based or Oversold?
Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.
Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.
“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said.
In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.
But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.
In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said.
The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.
A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.
One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.
In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.
Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.
A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence.
Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.
When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.
Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”
The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.
“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.
Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.
Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.
“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.
But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States.
“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.
William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”
Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.
Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.
Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy.
“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.
At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?”
Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.
Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”
Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.
Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.
“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped.
Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions.
Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.
Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.
Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age.
Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.
At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.
Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.
That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said.
— Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy.
But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.
As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs.
No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.
Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques.
“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.
“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said.
Evidence-Based or Oversold?
Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.
Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.
“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said.
In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.
But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.
In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said.
The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.
A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.
One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.
In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.
Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.
A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence.
Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.
When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.
Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”
The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.
“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.
Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.
Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.
“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.
But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States.
“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.
William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”
Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.
Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.
Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy.
“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.
At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?”
Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.
Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”
Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.
Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.
“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped.
Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions.
Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.
Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.
Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age.
Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.
At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.
Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.
That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said.
— Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy.
But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.
As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs.
No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.
Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques.
“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.
“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said.
Evidence-Based or Oversold?
Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.
Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.
“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said.
In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.
But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.
In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said.
The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.
A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.
One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.
In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.
Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.
A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence.
Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.
When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.
Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”
The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.
“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.
Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.
Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.
“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.
But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States.
“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.
William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”
Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.
Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.
Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy.
“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.
At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?”
Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.
Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”
Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.
Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.
“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Plant-Based Diet a Boon for Men With Prostate Cancer
, new research showed.
The findings, published on February 13, 2024, in the journal Cancer, bolster previous research showing plant-based diets can reduce the risk for recurrence and improve survivorship in men with prostate cancer.
“The current study shows for the first time an association between eating more plant-based food with better scores for quality of life among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Stacy Loeb, MD, a urologist in the departments of Urology and Population Health at NYU Langone Health, in New York City, who led the research.
For the new study, Dr. Loeb and her colleagues looked at data from more than 3500 men with prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, an ongoing investigation begun in 1986 and sponsored by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The dataset included more than 50,000 male dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, and veterinarians.
The median age of prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy and 35% had radiation as primary therapy. None of the patients were known to have had metastatic disease.
Men in the study answered a questionnaire every 4 years about the kinds of foods they ate and in what proportions. Another survey, administered every 2 years, assessed the frequency of incontinence, difficulties maintaining an erection, and problems with bowels, energy, and mood, among many other health concerns.
Dr. Loeb and her colleagues sorted patients into quintiles based on the proportion of plant vs animal foods the men said they eat. The authors found those who consumed the most plant-based foods scored 8%-11% better in measures of sexual function than the group that consumed the least of these products.
These men also reported up to 14% better scores for urinary health, with fewer instances of incontinence, obstruction, and irritation, and up to 13% better scores in hormonal health, marked by symptoms like low energy, depression, and hot flashes.
Justin Gregg, MD, a urology researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, whose research has found the Mediterranean diet can slow tumor progression among men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance, called the results “not entirely surprising, as prior studies have shown associations between plant-based diet and outcomes like erectile function among men who do not have prostate cancer.”
But Kenneth Jacobsohn, MD, professor of urology and director of lifestyle medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, said the new findings help establish “the positive role of diet quality and plant-based diets, specifically on quality of life after prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.”
Dr. Jacobsohn said the study was limited by its retrospective nature and the manner of the dietary assessment.
“As the authors point out, a plant-based diet may be helpful, though it’s important to keep in mind the strong data for its protective effect in terms of cardiovascular disease risk, which is very important for men who have a history of prostate cancer as many will die of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gregg added.
Dr. Loeb, Dr. Gregg, and Dr. Jacobsohn reported no conflicts of interest. Some of the study authors reported a variety of potential conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
, new research showed.
The findings, published on February 13, 2024, in the journal Cancer, bolster previous research showing plant-based diets can reduce the risk for recurrence and improve survivorship in men with prostate cancer.
“The current study shows for the first time an association between eating more plant-based food with better scores for quality of life among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Stacy Loeb, MD, a urologist in the departments of Urology and Population Health at NYU Langone Health, in New York City, who led the research.
For the new study, Dr. Loeb and her colleagues looked at data from more than 3500 men with prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, an ongoing investigation begun in 1986 and sponsored by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The dataset included more than 50,000 male dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, and veterinarians.
The median age of prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy and 35% had radiation as primary therapy. None of the patients were known to have had metastatic disease.
Men in the study answered a questionnaire every 4 years about the kinds of foods they ate and in what proportions. Another survey, administered every 2 years, assessed the frequency of incontinence, difficulties maintaining an erection, and problems with bowels, energy, and mood, among many other health concerns.
Dr. Loeb and her colleagues sorted patients into quintiles based on the proportion of plant vs animal foods the men said they eat. The authors found those who consumed the most plant-based foods scored 8%-11% better in measures of sexual function than the group that consumed the least of these products.
These men also reported up to 14% better scores for urinary health, with fewer instances of incontinence, obstruction, and irritation, and up to 13% better scores in hormonal health, marked by symptoms like low energy, depression, and hot flashes.
Justin Gregg, MD, a urology researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, whose research has found the Mediterranean diet can slow tumor progression among men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance, called the results “not entirely surprising, as prior studies have shown associations between plant-based diet and outcomes like erectile function among men who do not have prostate cancer.”
But Kenneth Jacobsohn, MD, professor of urology and director of lifestyle medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, said the new findings help establish “the positive role of diet quality and plant-based diets, specifically on quality of life after prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.”
Dr. Jacobsohn said the study was limited by its retrospective nature and the manner of the dietary assessment.
“As the authors point out, a plant-based diet may be helpful, though it’s important to keep in mind the strong data for its protective effect in terms of cardiovascular disease risk, which is very important for men who have a history of prostate cancer as many will die of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gregg added.
Dr. Loeb, Dr. Gregg, and Dr. Jacobsohn reported no conflicts of interest. Some of the study authors reported a variety of potential conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
, new research showed.
The findings, published on February 13, 2024, in the journal Cancer, bolster previous research showing plant-based diets can reduce the risk for recurrence and improve survivorship in men with prostate cancer.
“The current study shows for the first time an association between eating more plant-based food with better scores for quality of life among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Stacy Loeb, MD, a urologist in the departments of Urology and Population Health at NYU Langone Health, in New York City, who led the research.
For the new study, Dr. Loeb and her colleagues looked at data from more than 3500 men with prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, an ongoing investigation begun in 1986 and sponsored by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The dataset included more than 50,000 male dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, and veterinarians.
The median age of prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy and 35% had radiation as primary therapy. None of the patients were known to have had metastatic disease.
Men in the study answered a questionnaire every 4 years about the kinds of foods they ate and in what proportions. Another survey, administered every 2 years, assessed the frequency of incontinence, difficulties maintaining an erection, and problems with bowels, energy, and mood, among many other health concerns.
Dr. Loeb and her colleagues sorted patients into quintiles based on the proportion of plant vs animal foods the men said they eat. The authors found those who consumed the most plant-based foods scored 8%-11% better in measures of sexual function than the group that consumed the least of these products.
These men also reported up to 14% better scores for urinary health, with fewer instances of incontinence, obstruction, and irritation, and up to 13% better scores in hormonal health, marked by symptoms like low energy, depression, and hot flashes.
Justin Gregg, MD, a urology researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, whose research has found the Mediterranean diet can slow tumor progression among men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance, called the results “not entirely surprising, as prior studies have shown associations between plant-based diet and outcomes like erectile function among men who do not have prostate cancer.”
But Kenneth Jacobsohn, MD, professor of urology and director of lifestyle medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, said the new findings help establish “the positive role of diet quality and plant-based diets, specifically on quality of life after prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.”
Dr. Jacobsohn said the study was limited by its retrospective nature and the manner of the dietary assessment.
“As the authors point out, a plant-based diet may be helpful, though it’s important to keep in mind the strong data for its protective effect in terms of cardiovascular disease risk, which is very important for men who have a history of prostate cancer as many will die of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gregg added.
Dr. Loeb, Dr. Gregg, and Dr. Jacobsohn reported no conflicts of interest. Some of the study authors reported a variety of potential conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .