George, Arvin K.

369 Background: MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation (TULSA) uses MRI to target, monitor, and control thermal ablation of prostate tissue with high intensity directional ultrasound, demonstrating favorable histologic control and preservation of genitourinary function in single-arm studies [1,2]. CAPTAIN (NCT05027477) is a post-market, multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) of TULSA vs RARP for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, and is the first such study to meet its enrolment target. Here we compare baseline patient characteristics, treatment parameters, and periprocedural outcomes. Methods: CAPTAIN enrolled men with treatment-naïve, organ-confined, Grade Group 2 or 3 prostate cancer at 23 centers including academic and private clinics in the USA (20), Canada (2), and Finland (1). Patients were randomized 2:1 to TULSA or RARP, without crossover. Endpoints include pad-free urinary continence (EPIC) and erections sufficient for penetration (IIEF Q2) at 1 year, salvage treatment at 3 years, and survival to 10 years. Periprocedural metrics include length of stay, blood loss, catheter time, and 30-day patient diary (EQ-5D-5L, NRS pain score). Results: 211 patients were treated from Jan 2022 to Aug 2025 (70% TULSA, 30% RARP), surpassing the enrolment target of 201. Arms had similar baseline characteristics: median (IQR) age for TULSA vs. RARP was 63 (58–68) vs 65 (60–69) years (p=0.12), PSA was 6.5 (4.9–9.6) vs 7.2 (5.6–9.7) ng/mL (p=0.63), Grade Group 2/3 proportions were 76%/24% vs 77%/23% (p=0.88). RARP involved bilateral, unilateral, or no nerve sparing in 89%, 5.7%, and 5.7% of cases. TULSA ablation plans included whole-gland (68%) and ≥hemi-ablation (32%). Median (IQR) blood loss was lower during TULSA vs RARP: 0 (0–0) vs 100 (100–200) mL (p<0.001). Hospital stay was shorter for TULSA: 0.29 (0.27–0.32) vs 1.24 (1.12–1.36) days (p<0.001). Catheter duration was longer post-TULSA: 13 (11–15) vs 8 (8–10) days (p<0.001). Patients reported lower NRS pain scores after TULSA to post-operative day 6, and less decline in overall health on the EQ-5D-5L 0-100 visual analog scale over 30 days (p<0.05). Fewer patients reported extreme inability on EQ-5D-5L after TULSA vs RARP over the first month for mobility (0% vs 15%), self-care (1% vs 18%), and usual activities (18% vs 38%) (all p<0.05). Conclusions: CAPTAIN is the first multicenter RCT comparing ablation to radical prostate cancer treatment to meet its enrollment target. Early perioperative results from CAPTAIN demonstrate that TULSA had no blood loss or overnight hospitalization, reduced post-procedural pain, and faster return to baseline activities and overall health. Data collection to 1 and 3 years post-treatment continues to readout of the primary safety and oncological outcomes. [1] Klotz et al 2021, JUrol 205(3):769-779. [2] Eggener et al 2024, UrolOnc 42:S83. Clinical trial information: NCT05027477 .

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.

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.

Objectives To investigate the impact of implementing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion technology on biopsy and prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates in men presenting with clinical suspicion for PCa in the clinical practice setting. Patients and Methods We performed a review of 1 808 consecutive men referred for elevated prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) level between 2011 and 2014. The study population was divided into two groups based on whether MRI was used as a risk stratification tool. Univariable and multivariable analyses of biopsy rates and overall and clinically significant PCa detection rates between groups were performed. Results The MRI and PSA‐only groups consisted of 1 020 and 788 patients, respectively. A total of 465 patients (45.6%) in the MRI group and 442 (56.1%) in the PSA‐only group underwent biopsy, corresponding to an 18.7% decrease in the proportion of patients receiving biopsy in the MRI group ( P < 0.001). Overall PCa (56.8% vs 40.7%; P < 0.001) and clinically significant PCa detection (47.3% vs 31.0%; P < 0.001) was significantly higher in the MRI vs the PSA‐only group. In logistic regression analyses, the odds of overall PCa detection (odds ratio [OR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29–2.35; P < 0.001) and clinically significant PCa detection (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.48–2.80; P < 0.001) were higher in the MRI than in the PSA‐only group after adjusting for clinically relevant PCa variables. Conclusion Among men presenting with clinical suspicion for PCa, addition of MRI increases detection of clinically significant cancers while reducing prostate biopsy rates when implemented in a clinical practice setting.

Objective To evaluate whether elective off‐clamp laparoscopic partial nephrectomy ( LPN ) affords long‐term renal functional benefit compared with the on‐clamp approach. Patients and Methods This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent elective LPN between 2006 and 2011. Patients were followed longitudinally for up to 5 years. In all, 315 patients with radiographic evidence of a solitary renal mass and normal‐appearing contralateral kidney underwent elective LPN ; 209 were performed on‐clamp vs 106 off‐clamp. One patient who required conversion from LPN to open PN was excluded from the study. Additionally, four patients in the on‐clamp cohort who underwent subsequent radical nephrectomy for local‐regional recurrence were excluded from longitudinal functional evaluation after their procedure. The primary objective was to evaluate differences in postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate ( eGFR ) between hilar clamping groups. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients with clamp times >30 min and those with baseline renal insufficiency ( eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m 2 ). Risk of developing worsened or new‐onset renal insufficiency was also compared. Results The mean preoperative eGFR was similar between the on‐clamp and off‐clamp cohorts (80.7 vs 84.1 mL/min/1.73m 2 , P > 0.05). Univariable and multivariable analyses did not show significant differences in postoperative eGFR between both groups among all‐comers, those with clamp times >30 min, and patients with baseline renal insufficiency. Risk of chronic kidney disease was not diminished by the off‐clamp approach with up to 5 years of follow‐up. Conclusions Progressive recovery of renal function after hilar clamping in the elective setting eclipses short‐term functional benefit achieved with off‐clamp LPN by 6 months; there was no significant difference in eGFR or the percentage incidence of chronic kidney disease between the on‐clamp and off‐clamp cohorts with up to 5 years follow‐up. As such, eliminating transient ischaemia during elective LPN does not confer clinical benefit.