Stefano De Luca

Changes in Bone Mineral Density, Lean Body Mass and Fat Content as Measured by Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Patients With Prostate Cancer Without Apparent Bone Metastases Given Androgen Deprivation Therapy

PURPOSE We characterize the consequences of androgen deprivation therapy on body composition in elderly men. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry instrument, we determined the changes in bone mineral density, bone mineral content, fat body mass and lean body mass in 35 patients with prostate cancer without bone metastases who received luteinizing hormone releasing hormone analogue for 12 months. RESULTS At baseline conditions 46% of cases were classified as osteopenic and 14% as osteoporotic at the lumbar spine and 40% were osteopenic and 4% osteoporotic at the hip. Androgen deprivation significantly decreased bone mineral density either at the lumbar spine (mean gm./cm.2 [SD] 1.00 [0.194], 0.986 [0.172] and 0.977 [0.182] at baseline, and 6 and 12 months, respectively, p <0.002) or the hip (0.929 [0.136], 0.926 [0.144] and 0.923 [0.138], p <0.03). A more than 2% decrease in bone mineral density was found at the lumbar spine in 19 men (54.3%) and at the hip in 15 (42.9%). Bone mineral content paralleled the bone mineral density pattern. Lean body mass decreased (mean gm. [SD] 50,287 [6,656], 49,296 [6,554] and 49,327 [6,345], p <0.003), whereas fat body mass consistently increased (18,115 [6,209], 20,724 [6,029] and 21,604 [5,923] p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS Serial bone densitometry evaluation during androgen deprivation therapy may allow the detection of patients with prostate cancer at risk for osteoporotic fractures, that is those with osteopenia or osteoporosis at baseline and fast bone loss. The change in body composition may predispose patients to accidental falls, thus increasing the risk of bone fracture.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Prostate Health Index and Urinary PCA3 for Predicting Cancer at Initial or Repeat Biopsy

PURPOSE We performed a head-to-head comparison of the PHI (Prostate Health Index) and PCA3. MATERIALS AND METHODS We evaluated PHI and PCA3 performance in 211 patients undergoing initial (116) or repeat (95) prostate biopsy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was done using the AUC to test the accuracy of PHI and PCA3 for predicting prostate cancer in the overall population and in each setting. Decision curve analysis was used to compare the clinical benefit of different models. RESULTS Overall, the AUC of the PHI (0.70) was significantly higher than the AUC of PCA3 (0.59), total prostate specific antigen (0.56) and free-to-total prostate specific antigen (0.60) (p = 0.043, 0.002 and 0.037, respectively). PHI was more accurate than PCA3 for predicting prostate cancer in the initial setting (AUC 0.69 vs 0.57) and in the repeat setting (AUC 0.72 vs 0.63), although no statistically significant difference was observed. Including PCA3 in the base multivariable model (prostate specific antigen plus free-to-total prostate specific antigen plus prostate volume) did not increase predictive accuracy in either setting (AUC 0.79 vs 0.80 and 0.75 vs 0.76, respectively). Conversely, including PHI in the base multivariable model improved predictive accuracy by 5% (AUC 0.79 to 0.84) and 6% (AUC 0.75 to 0.81) in the initial and repeat prostate biopsy settings, respectively. On decision curve analysis the highest net benefit was observed when PHI was added to the base multivariable model. CONCLUSIONS PHI and PCA3 provide a significant increase in sensitivity and specificity compared to all other examined markers and they may help guide biopsy decisions. PCA3 does not increase the accuracy of predicting prostate cancer when PHI is assessed.

Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND An approach based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) might increase the detection rate (DR) of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). OBJECTIVE To compare an mpMRI-based pathway with the standard approach for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and csPCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Between November 2014 and April 2016, 212 biopsy-naïve patients with suspected PCa (prostate specific antigen level ≤15 ng/ml and negative digital rectal examination results) were included in this randomized clinical trial. Patients were randomized into a prebiopsy mpMRI group (arm A, n=107) or a standard biopsy (SB) group (arm B, n=105). INTERVENTION In arm A, patients with mpMRI evidence of lesions suspected for PCa underwent mpMRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion software-guided targeted biopsy (TB) (n=81). The remaining patients in arm A (n=26) with negative mpMRI results and patients in arm B underwent 12-core SB. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary end point was comparison of the DR of PCa and csPCa between the two arms of the study; the secondary end point was comparison of the DR between TB and SB. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The overall DRs were higher in arm A versus arm B for PCa (50.5% vs 29.5%, respectively; p=0.002) and csPCa (43.9% vs 18.1%, respectively; p<0.001). Concerning the biopsy approach, that is, TB in arm A, SB in arm A, and SB in arm B, the overall DRs were significantly different for PCa (60.5% vs 19.2% vs 29.5%, respectively; p<0.001) and for csPCa (56.8% vs 3.8% vs 18.1%, respectively; p<0.001). The reproducibility of the study could have been affected by the single-center nature. CONCLUSIONS A diagnostic pathway based on mpMRI had a higher DR than the standard pathway in both PCa and csPCa. PATIENT SUMMARY In this randomized trial, a pathway for the diagnosis of prostate cancer based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was compared with the standard pathway based on random biopsy. The mpMRI-based pathway had better performance than the standard pathway.

In-parallel comparative evaluation between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, prostate cancer antigen 3 and the prostate health index in predicting pathologically confirmed significant prostate cancer in men eligible for active surveillance

To assess the performance capabilities of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), the prostate health index (PHI) and prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) in predicting the presence of pathologically confirmed significant prostate cancer (PCSPCa), according to the European Randomized Study of Screening Prostate Cancer definition, in a single cohort of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) but who were eligible for active surveillance (AS).

High prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) scores are associated with elevated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) grade and biopsy Gleason score, at magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion software-based targeted prostate biopsy after a previous negative standard biopsy.

To determine the association among prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) score, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) grade and Gleason score, in a cohort of patients with elevated prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), undergoing magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion software‐based targeted prostate biopsy (TBx) after a previous negative randomised ‘standard’ biopsy (SBx).

High PCA3 scores are associated to elevated Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) grade and biopsy Gleason Score, at MRI/US fusion software-based targeted prostate biopsy after a previous negative standard biopsy.

To determine the association among prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) score, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) grade and Gleason score, in a cohort of patients with elevated prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), undergoing magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion software‐based targeted prostate biopsy (TBx) after a previous negative randomised ‘standard’ biopsy (SBx).

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and active surveillance: How to better select insignificant prostate cancer?

To evaluate the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in improving the predictive accuracy of the Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance and Epstein criteria for active surveillance in prostate cancer.

Fluctuation in prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) score in men undergoing first or repeat prostate biopsies

To evaluate the variability in prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) score over time in men with elevated serum prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) levels who are undergoing first or repeat prostate biopsy.

Histological chronic prostatitis and high‐grade prostate intra‐epithelial neoplasia do not influence urinary prostate cancer gene 3 score

Study Type – Diagnostic (case series) Level of Evidence 4 Whats known on the subject? and What does the study add? While the relationship between PCA3 score and clinical or histological prostatitis was quite proven even in small patient groups, conversely the relationship between PCA3 score and HG‐PIN is still under debate. We demonstrated in a large series (432 patients) that histologically documented chronic prostatitis and HG‐PIN have similar PCA3 scores to patients with BPH and/or normal parenchyma at biopsy.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: Number and Spatial Distribution of Cores for Better Index Tumor Detection and Characterization

Purpose: We evaluated the minimum core number for better index tumor detection to determine the best core site as well as biopsy Gleason score heterogeneity in the same index lesion. The aim was to optimize the highest Gleason score detection. Materials and Methods: A total of 327 patients with negative digital rectal examination underwent magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy for elevated/rising prostate specific antigen and/or 1 or more detectable lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging after a previous negative standard biopsy. Depending on the diameter of each index lesion (8 or less, or greater than 8 mm) 4 or 6 cores, respectively, were taken according to a well determined sequence. Results: Of the patients 166 (50.7%) had prostate cancer, including 79 (47.6%) with an 8 mm or less index lesion and 87 (52.4%) with a greater than 8 mm index lesion. Of patients with an index tumor 8 mm or less 7 (8.9%) had 1, 31 (39.2%) had 2, 27 (34.2%) had 3 and 14 (17.7%) had 4 positive cores. Similarly, of patients with a lesion greater than 8 mm 8 (9.2%) had 1, 30 (34.5%) had 2, 13 (14.9%) had 3, 14 (16.1%) had 4, 12 (13.8%) had 5 and 10 (11.5%) had 6 positive cores. The major prevalence of positive cores was observed in the center of the target. Gleason score heterogeneity was found in 12.6% of those with an 8 mm or less target vs 26.4% with a target greater than 8 mm. In the center of the target there was a slight prevalence of Gleason pattern 4 or greater, or a lesser pattern. Conclusions: Approaching magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy with a single core might be inadequate. Rather, taking 2 cores in the center of the index lesion may provide more accurate cancer detection and optimize the chances of finding the highest Gleason pattern.