Helfand, Brian T.

TPS272 Background: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting positron emission tomography (PET) radiopharmaceuticals enable early detection of metastatic and recurrent prostate cancer (PCa). High urinary radioactivity of some PSMA-PET agents can affect interpretation of scans in the pelvic region (prostate/prostate bed [PB]; pelvic lymph nodes [PLN]). 18 F-Piflufolastat and 18 F-flotufolastat are FDA-approved, mainly renally cleared, diagnostic PSMA-PET agents; data suggest 18 F-flotufolastat has lower urinary radioactivity than 18 F-piflufolastat, but no clinical differences have been confirmed by head-to-head intra-patient studies. The present study will directly compare the urinary radioactivity of 18 F-piflufolastat with 18 F-flotufolastat in men with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical recurrence (BCR) of PCa after radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: This multicenter, prospective, intra-patient comparator study will include men (≥ 18 years old) with low PSA (≤ 0.5 ng/mL) BCR of PCa who have had RP ≥ 6 months before enrollment (with undetectable PSA post surgery) and are due to have routine 18 F-piflufolastat PET. Men who have had prior 18 F-piflufolastat PET or salvage therapy, or with conditions affecting urinary output, will be excluded. Eligible patients will undergo 18 F-piflufolastat PET followed by 18 F-flotufolastat PET ≥ 24 hours but ≤ 10 days later. No diuretic will be administered for scanning purposes. Each radiopharmaceutical will be administered as a single intravenous bolus per approved US prescribing information (USPI). Scanning (with the same scanner for both scans) will start 50–90 minutes post injection of 18 F-piflufolastat and 50–70 minutes post injection of 18 F-flotufolastat. Each patient will be their own control. The primary endpoint will be difference in mean standardized uptake value (SUV mean ) between 18 F-piflufolastat and 18 F-flotufolastat as assessed in volumes of interest drawn on the urinary bladder. Secondary endpoints for both agents will include detection rates: at the patient level (overall; by baseline PSA); for local recurrences in PB subregions; and for PLN lesions. For secondary endpoints, PET scans will be interpreted per product-specific USPI by 2 specially trained, blinded, central readers (a third reader will adjudicate disagreements). Safety will be monitored until 24 hours after the second scan. Around 60 men will be screened and ≥ 52 with evaluable PET scans for both agents will be included in the primary analysis. The primary endpoint will be assessed for normality and a difference in SUV mean will be tested using 2-sided paired tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank test [non-normal]; t-test [normal]). All further endpoints, including safety, will be summarized descriptively. The trial has been open for enrollment since 10/24. Clinical trial information: NCT06604442 .

Indications for and implications of germline genetic testing (GGT) in patients with prostate cancer have expanded over the past decade, particularly related to precision therapies and management. GGT has become the standard of care for many cancers such as breast, ovarian, colorectal, pancreatic, and metastatic prostate cancer, and it is imperative that patients be offered timely and equitable access to testing as it can inform patient-physician shared decision making for management of the current cancer as well as anticipatory guidance for disease progression. Additionally, GGT guides screening for and prevention of secondary malignancies for the patient and cascade testing for at-risk family members. Here, we present data supporting the notion that clinicians should offer all patients with prostate cancer the opportunity to undergo comprehensive GGT for pathogenic germline variants known to be associated with familial cancer and/or known to have implications for treatment and management.

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence‐based guidance to clinicians of all specialties on the evaluation, management, and treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB). The guideline informs the reader on valid diagnostic processes and provides an approach to selecting treatment options for patients with OAB through the shared decision‐making process, which will maximize symptom control and quality of life, while minimizing adverse events and burden of disease.MethodsAn electronic search employing OVID was used to systematically search the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the Cochrane Library, for systematic reviews and primary studies evaluating diagnosis and treatment of OAB from January 2013 to November 2023. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies were based on the Key Questions and the populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, timing, types of studies and settings (PICOTS) of interest. Following the study selection process, 159 studies were included and were used to inform evidence‐based recommendation statements.ResultsThis guideline produced 33 statements that cover the evaluation and diagnosis of the patient with symptoms suggestive of OAB; the treatment options for patients with OAB, including Noninvasive therapies, pharmacotherapy, minimally invasive therapies, invasive therapies, and indwelling catheters; and the management of patients with BPH and OAB.ConclusionOnce the diagnosis of OAB is made, the clinician and the patient with OAB have a variety of treatment options to choose from and should, through shared decision‐making, formulate a personalized treatment approach taking into account evidence‐based recommendations as well as patient values and preferences.

The PRESERVE study (NCT04972097) aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the NanoKnife System to ablate prostate tissue in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The NanoKnife uses irreversible electroporation (IRE) to deliver high-voltage electrical pulses to change the permeability of cell membranes, leading to cell death. A total of 121 subjects with organ-confined PCa ≤ T2c, prostate-specific antigens (PSAs) ≤ 15 ng/mL, and a Gleason score of 3 + 4 or 4 + 3 underwent focal ablation of the index lesion. The primary endpoints included negative in-field biopsy and adverse event incidence, type, and severity through 12 months. At the time of analysis, the trial had completed accrual with preliminary follow-up available. Demographics, disease characteristics, procedural details, PSA responses, and adverse events (AEs) are presented. The median (IQR) age at screening was 67.0 (61.0–72.0) years and Gleason distribution 3 + 4 (80.2%) and 4 + 3 (19.8%). At 6 months, all patients with available data (n = 74) experienced a median (IQR) percent reduction in PSA of 67.6% (52.3–82.2%). Only ten subjects (8.3%) experienced a Grade 3 adverse event; five were procedure-related. No Grade ≥ 4 AEs were reported. This study supports prior findings that IRE prostate ablation with the NanoKnife System can be performed safely. Final results are required to fully assess oncological, functional, and safety outcomes.

The following video Atlas summary reviews all technical elements of the standardized setup, robotic execution, aquablation procedure, and hemostasis for efficient rapid benign prostate hyperplasia treatment.

PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

Objective To evaluate whether genetic correction using the genetic variants prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA )‐single nucleotide polymorphisms ( SNPs ) could reduce potentially unnecessary and/or delayed biopsies in A frican‐ A merican men. Subjects and Methods We compared the genotypes of four PSA ‐ SNPs between 964 C aucasian and 363 A frican‐ A merican men without known prostate cancer ( PCa ). We adjusted the PSA values based on an individual's PSA‐SNP carrier status, and calculated the percentage of men that would meet commonly used PSA thresholds for biopsy (≥2.5 or ≥4.0 ng/mL) before and after genetic correction. Potentially unnecessary and delayed biopsies were defined as those men who were below and above the biopsy threshold after genetic correction, respectively. Results Overall, 349 (96.1%) and 354 (97.5%) A frican‐ A merican men had measured PSA levels <2.5 and <4.0 ng/mL. Genetic correction in A frican‐ A merican men did not avoid any potentially unnecessary biopsies, but resulted in a significant ( P < 0.001) reduction in potentially delayed biopsies by 2.5% and 3.9%, based on the biopsy threshold level. Conclusions There are significant differences in the influence of the PSA ‐ SNPs between A frican‐ A merican and C aucasian men without known PCa , as genetic correction resulted in an increased proportion of A frican‐ A merican men crossing the threshold for biopsy. These results raise the question of whether genetic differences in PSA might contribute to delayed PCa diagnosis in A frican‐ A merican men.