Modern predictors and management of incidental prostate cancer at holmium enucleation of prostate.
benign prostatic hyperplasia
genomics
holmium enucleation of the prostate
incidental prostate cancer
lower urinary tract symptoms
multiparametric prostate MRI
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Aug 2024
18 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
15
07
2024
received:
17
04
2024
accepted:
09
08
2024
medline:
18
8
2024
pubmed:
18
8
2024
entrez:
18
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To evaluate contemporary preoperative risk factors and subsequent postoperative management of incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) and incidental clinically significant prostate cancer (icsPCa, Grade Group [GG] ≥ 2 PCa). A retrospective cohort of 811 men undergoing Holmium enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) (January 2021-July 2022) were identified. Advanced preoperative testing was defined as prostate health index (PHI), prostate MRI, and/or negative preoperative biopsy. Descriptive statistics (Whitney-Mann U test, Chi-squared test) and multivariable logistic regression were performed. iPCa and icsPCa detection rates were 12.8% (104/811) and 4.4% (36/811), respectively. Advanced preoperative testing (406/811, 50%) was associated with younger age and higher (prostate specific antigen) PSA, prostate volume, and PSA density. On multivariable analysis, PHI ≥ 55 was associated with iPCa (OR 6.91, 95% CI 1.85-26.3, p = 0.004), and % free PSA (%fPSA) was associated with icsPCa (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67, 0.94, p = 0.01). GG1 disease comprised the majority of iPCa (65%, 68/104) with median 1% involvement. iPCa patients were followed with active surveillance (median follow up 9.3 months), with higher risk patients receiving prostate MRI and confirmatory biopsy. Three patients proceeded to radical prostatectomy or radiation. In the era of MRI and advanced biomarkers, the majority of iPCa following HoLEP is low volume GG1 suitable for active surveillance. A tentative follow-up strategy is proposed. Patients with PHI ≥ 55 or low %fPSA, even with negative prostate MRI, can consider preoperative prostate biopsy before HoLEP.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To evaluate contemporary preoperative risk factors and subsequent postoperative management of incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) and incidental clinically significant prostate cancer (icsPCa, Grade Group [GG] ≥ 2 PCa).
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective cohort of 811 men undergoing Holmium enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) (January 2021-July 2022) were identified. Advanced preoperative testing was defined as prostate health index (PHI), prostate MRI, and/or negative preoperative biopsy. Descriptive statistics (Whitney-Mann U test, Chi-squared test) and multivariable logistic regression were performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
iPCa and icsPCa detection rates were 12.8% (104/811) and 4.4% (36/811), respectively. Advanced preoperative testing (406/811, 50%) was associated with younger age and higher (prostate specific antigen) PSA, prostate volume, and PSA density. On multivariable analysis, PHI ≥ 55 was associated with iPCa (OR 6.91, 95% CI 1.85-26.3, p = 0.004), and % free PSA (%fPSA) was associated with icsPCa (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67, 0.94, p = 0.01). GG1 disease comprised the majority of iPCa (65%, 68/104) with median 1% involvement. iPCa patients were followed with active surveillance (median follow up 9.3 months), with higher risk patients receiving prostate MRI and confirmatory biopsy. Three patients proceeded to radical prostatectomy or radiation.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In the era of MRI and advanced biomarkers, the majority of iPCa following HoLEP is low volume GG1 suitable for active surveillance. A tentative follow-up strategy is proposed. Patients with PHI ≥ 55 or low %fPSA, even with negative prostate MRI, can consider preoperative prostate biopsy before HoLEP.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Egan KB. The epidemiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia associated with lower urinary tract symptoms. Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43(3):289‐297.
Lerner LB, McVary KT, Barry MJ, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA guideline Part I–Initial work‐up and medical management. J Urol. 2021;206(4):806‐817.
Ibrahim A, Alharbi M, Elhilali MM, Aubé M, Carrier S. 18 years of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a single center experience. J Urol. 2019;202(4):795‐800.
Lee MS, Assmus MA, Guo J, Siddiqui MR, Ross AE, Krambeck AE. Relationships between holmium laser enucleation of the prostate and prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2022;20:226‐240.
Nunez R, Hurd KJ, Noble BN, Castle EP, Andrews PE, Humphreys MR. Incidental prostate cancer revisited: early outcomes after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Int J Urol. 2011;18(7):543‐547.
Rosenhammer B, Lausenmeyer EM, Mayr R, Burger M, Eichelberg C. HoLEP provides a higher prostate cancer detection rate compared to bipolar TURP: a matched‐pair analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36(12):2035‐2041.
Elkoushy MA, Elshal AM, Elhilali MM. Incidental prostate cancer diagnosis during holmium laser enucleation: assessment of predictors, survival, and disease progression. Urology. 2015;86(3):552‐557.
Mauler DJ, Sella DM, Dora CD. Utilizing preoperative magnetic resonance imaging to self‐assess enucleation ratio in holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Urology. 2022;160:176‐181.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI‐targeted or standard biopsy for prostate‐cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767‐1777.
Tosoian JJ, Druskin SC, Andreas D, et al. Use of the prostate health index for detection of prostate cancer: results from a large academic practice. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(2):228‐233.
Jairath NK, Dal Pra A, Vince Jr. R, et al. A systematic review of the evidence for the decipher genomic classifier in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2021;79(3):374‐383.
Wei JT, Barocas D, Carlsson S, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline part I: prostate cancer screening. J Urol. 2023;210(1):101097ju0000000000003491.
Bhojani N, Boris RS, Monn MF, Mandeville JA, Lingeman JE. Coexisting prostate cancer found at the time of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia: predicting its presence and grade in analyzed tissue. J Endourol. 2015;29(1):41‐46.
Han JH, Chung DH, Cho MC, et al. Natural history of incidentally diagnosed prostate cancer after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. PLoS One. 2023;18(2):e0278931.
Bott SRJ, Young MPA, Kellett MJ, Parkinson MC. Anterior prostate cancer: is it more difficult to diagnose? BJU Int. 2002;89(9):886‐889.
Wenzel M, Welte MN, Grossmann L, et al. Multiparametric MRI may help to identify patients with prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort of patients with clinical bladder outlet obstruction scheduled for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Front Surg. 2021;8:633196.
Misraï V, Pasquie M, Bordier B, et al. Accuracy of the preoperative PSA level for predicting clinically significant incidental transitional zone‐prostate cancer before endoscopic enucleation of very large adenoma. World J Urol. 2020;38(4):993‐1000.
Siddiqui MR, Li EV, Kumar S, et al. Optimizing detection of clinically significant prostate cancer through nomograms incorporating mri, clinical features, and advanced serum biomarkers in biopsy naïve men. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023;26:588‐595.
Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: experience with 1,287 patients. prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1121‐1126.
Otsubo S, Yokomizo A, Mochida O, et al. Significance of prostate‐specific antigen‐related factors in incidental prostate cancer treated by holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. World J Urol. 2015;33(3):329‐333.
Magistro G, Keller P, Westhofen T, et al. The significance of a high preoperative PSA level for the detection of incidental prostate cancer in LUTS patients with large prostates. World J Urol. 2021;39(5):1481‐1487.
Loeb S, Sokoll LJ, Broyles DL, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the Beckman Coulter Prostate Health Index using WHO calibration. J Urol. 2013;189(5):1702‐1706.
Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG, et al. A multicenter study of [‐2]pro‐prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1650‐1655.
Abedali ZA, Calaway AC, Large T, Lingeman JE, Mellon MJ, Boris RS. The role of prostate specific antigen monitoring after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. J Urol. 2020;203(2):304‐310.
Helfand BT, Anderson CB, Fought A, Kim DY, Vyas A, McVary KT. Postoperative PSA and PSA velocity identify presence of prostate cancer after various surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 2009;74(1):177‐183.
Pellegrino F, Stabile A, Mazzone E, et al. Does previous prostate surgery affect multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging accuracy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer? Results from a single institution series. Prostate. 2022;82(12):1170‐1175.
Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F, Sigle A, Gratzke C, Benndorf M. Cancer detection rates of the PI‐RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta‐analysis on lesion level and patient level. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25(2):256‐263.