Sharma, Vidit

ABSTRACT Purpose The natural history of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains understudied, with limited long‐term data from large cohorts inclusive of both salvage radiotherapy (SRT)‐treated and untreated patients. Herein, we sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with BCR and the impact of SRT on disease progression. Materials and Methods Patients undergoing RP who developed BCR (PSA ≥ 0.20 ng/mL) were included. Patients with BCR treated with SRT were compared to untreated patients using risk‐set matching with time‐dependent propensity scores. The primary outcome was metastases, analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox models. The number needed to treat (NNT) with SRT to prevent progression was derived at 5 and 15 years. Results Among 6881 patients with BCR, 2109 received SRT. At a median follow‐up of 10.2 years, 1147 patients developed metastases. The median PSA at the time of SRT was 0.50 ng/mL. After 1:1 propensity score matching (2109 patients per cohort), SRT significantly reduced the risk of metastases at 5 (12.7% vs. 19.3%, p < 0.0001) and 15 years (28.6% vs. 31.5%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, SRT independently reduced metastasis risk (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.90, p = 0.002), translating to NNT of 23 and 15 at 5 and 15 years, respectively. Interaction analyses between SRT and nodal status ( p = 0.04) showed greater metastasis risk reduction in pN+ (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22–0.77, p = 0.005) compared to pN− disease (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67–0.97, p = 0.02). Conclusions Most patients with BCR post‐RP do not progress to metastasis. For those who do progress, SRT inarguably improves the oncologic outcomes in the BCR setting. However, careful patient selection and shared decision making should be encouraged in order to limit overtreatment and side effects.

382 Background: The natural history of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is heterogeneous, with most patients not progressing to metastasis. Determining the impact and optimal timing of salvage radiation therapy (SRT) remains challenging, particularly in the absence of prospective randomized trials with a surveillance control arm. Our objective isto quantify the oncologic benefit of SRT among men with BCR after RP. Methods: Patients who underwent RP at Mayo Clinic between 1990 and 2017 and developed BCR (PSA≥0.20ng/mL) were included. Patients treated with SRT were compared to those managed with surveillance using risk-set matching with time-dependent propensity scores, accounting for covariates at BCR and post-BCR. The primary outcome was metastases, analyzed via Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. The number needed to treat (NNT) with SRT to prevent progression was calculated using regression outputs at 5 and 15 years post-BCR. Interaction analyses identified factors modifying SRT’s effect on metastasis. Results: Of 6,881 patients with BCR, 2,109 received SRT. At a median follow-up of 10.2 years, 1,147 patients with BCR developed metastases. After 1:1 matching, SRT was associated with lower metastasis risk than surveillance at 5 years (12.7% vs 19.3%, p<0.0001) and 15 years (28.6% vs. 31.5%, p<0.001). SRT was independently associated with decreased metastasis risk (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63–0.90, p=0.002) on multivariable analysis, translating to NNT of 23 and 15 at 5 and 15 years, respectively (Table). Additionally, we noted a significant interaction between PSA at SRT and the association of SRT with metastasis (p-interaction=0.02), such that the reduction in metastatic progression with SRT vs. surveillance was restricted to the cohort of patients who received SRT for PSA>0.40ng/mL (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.54–0.80, p<0.001). Conclusions: Most patients with BCR post-RP do not develop metastases. Indeed, the NNT with SRT to reduce metastasis versus surveillance indicates a generally indolent disease course. Further, the lack of a significant association of SRT with reduction of metastases in patients with a PSA≤0.40ng/mL underscores the importance of careful patient selection when considering early SRT. Our data establish the rationale for a randomized trial comparing early SRT versus surveillance for appropriately selected patients with BCR after RP. Hazard ratios of SRT after matching by propensity scores, and number needed to treat for systemic progression, prostate cancer specific mortality and overall mortality. DiseaseOutcome Hazard Ratio(95% CI) P value Number Needed to Treat* (95% CI) 5 years 15 years Systemic progression 0.75(0.63 – 0.90) 0.002 23(17 – 41) 15(11 – 27) Prostate cancer mortality 0.81 (0.64 – 1.03) 0.086 103(62 – 494) 26(15 – 124) Overall mortality 0.79 (0.70 – 0.89) 0.0001 38(29 – 62) 12(9 – 20) *Number needed to treat (NNT) calculated using regression based absolute differences in event free survival between salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and observation.

BACKGROUND: The creation of operative reports is a tedious documentation task that increases administrative burden, which is a potential driver of burnout. Additionally, operative reports are inherently subjective and may contain inaccuracies and incomplete information. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology have enabled computer vision systems to accurately detect operative steps on surgical video. We aim to develop a platform for the automated creation of video-based AI surgical operative reports in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. STUDY DESIGN: An AI computer vision algorithm was used to automatically detect surgical steps. Each step detected on video was mapped to prespecified text, which was then compiled into a narrative AI operative report. The accuracy of the AI operative reports was compared with operative reports written by surgeons, using expert review of raw surgical video footage as the ground truth. RESULTS: A total of 158 cases from a tertiary referral center were included. In surgeon operative reports, 84 cases (53.2%) had at least 1 discrepancy between the operative report and surgical video. Of these, 43 cases (27.2%) had a clinically significant discrepancy based on expert video review. In AI operative reports, 46 cases (29.1%) had at least 1 discrepancy between the operative report and surgical video. Of these, 20 cases (12.7%) had a clinically significant discrepancy. Overall accuracy was higher for AI operative reports compared with surgeon operative reports (87.3% vs 72.8%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Operative reports created by AI achieved higher accuracy than those written by surgeons. To our knowledge, this is the first report of automated video-based AI surgical documentation. Future studies are warranted to explore the potential for this novel tool to reduce documentation burden, improve operative report accuracy, promote surgical transparency, and decrease subjectivity in surgical documentation.