Lee, Matthew S

Objective To assess the effect of Moses™ 2.0 (Lumenis Be Ltd., Yokneam Illit, Israel; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) for lithotripsy of renal stones of 8–20 mm in diameter on operative time, surgeon workload, and retropulsion. Subjects/Patients and Methods In our multicentre, randomised, double‐blind clinical trial, patients were randomised 1:1 to standard or Moses 2.0 laser lithotripsy and stratified by stone size. Patients and surgeons were blinded to laser modality. Primary outcomes were total operative time as well as surgeon workload assessed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration‐Task Load Index (NASA‐TLX). Secondary outcomes were stone retropulsion evaluated by blinded video review and postoperative clinical outcomes. Linear regression modelling was used for analysis. Results A total of 153 patients (79 Standard, 74 Moses 2.0) with similar clinical, stone, and operative characteristics were evaluated. There was no significant difference in operative times between the Standard and Moses 2.0 groups ( P = 0.73). Moses 2.0 was associated with lower effort, frustration, mental, physical, and temporal workload, as well as higher rated overall performance compared to the standard laser. Video review demonstrated no difference in rates of retropulsion ( P = 0.13). Complication rates (Standard: 13%; Moses 2.0: 10%) and stone‐free rates (Standard: 51%; Moses: 2.0 55%) were comparable. Conclusion Our study evaluated the impact of Moses 2.0 technology on high‐powered renal stone dusting, constituting the largest double‐blind trial of its kind to date. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any difference in operative times or clinical outcomes when using Moses 2.0 compared to standard laser lithotripsy. Moses 2.0 was associated with reduced surgeon workload, which has implicit impact on surgeon wellness.

PURPOSE Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is used widely for prostate cancer (PCa) evaluation. Approximately 35% of aggressive tumors, however, are not visible on mpMRI. We sought to identify the molecular alterations associated with mpMRI-invisible tumors and determine whether mpMRI visibility is associated with PCa prognosis. METHODS Discovery and validation cohorts included patients who underwent mpMRI before radical prostatectomy and were found to harbor both mpMRI-visible (Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System 3 to 5) and -invisible (Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System 1 or 2) foci on surgical pathology. Next-generation sequencing was performed to determine differential gene expression between mpMRI-visible and -invisible foci. A genetic signature for tumor mpMRI visibility was derived in the discovery cohort and assessed in an independent validation cohort. Its association with long-term oncologic outcomes was evaluated in a separate testing cohort. RESULTS The discovery cohort included 10 patients with 26 distinct PCa foci on surgical pathology, of which 12 (46%) were visible and 14 (54%) were invisible on preoperative mpMRI. Next-generation sequencing detected prioritized genetic mutations in 14 (54%) tumor foci (n = 8 mpMRI visible, n = 6 mpMRI invisible). A nine-gene signature (composed largely of cell organization/structure genes) associated with mpMRI visibility was derived (area under the curve = 0.89), and the signature predicted MRI visibility with 75% sensitivity and 100% specificity (area under the curve = 0.88) in the validation cohort. In the testing cohort (n = 375, median follow-up 8 years) there was no significant difference in biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis, or cancer-specific mortality in patients with predicted mpMRI-visible versus -invisible tumors (all P > .05). CONCLUSION Compared with mpMRI-invisible disease, mpMRI-visible tumors are associated with underexpression of cellular organization genes. mpMRI visibility does not seem to be predictive of long-term cancer outcomes, highlighting the need for biopsy strategies that detect mpMRI-invisible tumors.