Tollefson, Matthew K.

ABSTRACT Background While guidelines state that patients with NCCN favorable intermediate risk (FIR) prostate cancer (PCa) may consider active surveillance (AS), there is a relative lack of longer term follow up data informing AS inclusion criteria of patients with Grade Group (GG) 2 prostate cancer in the MRI era. Here we evaluate patient outcomes from a MRI‐screened AS‐eligible cohort of FIR GG2 PCa receiving radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods Patients with prostate MRI, NCCN FIR GG2 PCa (PSA < 10 ng/mL, ≤ cT2a, < 50% core positivity), and no prior treatments who underwent RP from 2015 to 2023 were included from a prospectively maintained prostatectomy registry. Primary outcomes were adverse pathologic features (APF) at RP (GG3‐5, ≥ pT3a, or pN1) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Logistic regression and Cox regression identified factors associated with APF at RP and time to BCR, respectively. Results Of 522 patients, 110 (21%) had APF at RP and 45 (9%) developed BCR with median follow up 2.4 years (IQR 1.3–2.8). On multivariable logistic regression, % Gleason pattern 4 (%GP4, %GP4 > 25% OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.28–3.58, p = 0.004) was independently associated with APF. On multivariable Cox regression for time to BCR, PSAD (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04–1.09, p < 0.001) and positive surgical margins (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.09–3.78, p = 0.03) were independently associated with BCR. PIRADS, % core positivity, and specimen involvement were associated with neither APF nor BCR. Conclusions % Gleason pattern 4 > 25% and PSAD are the primary factors associated with adverse outcomes and should be considered for patients with FIR GG2 PCa considering active surveillance. PIRADS and measures of biopsy cancer volume were not associated with APF or BCR. These results may inform patient selection for active surveillance among patients with FIR GG2 PCa.

Purpose: Surgical video review can be used in urologic training, yet significant barriers to the implementation of video review programs exist, and formal assessment of usage and utility for trainees is limited. Here, we evaluate a novel video review platform to describe patterns of use and determine perceived utility. Materials and Methods: We analyzed learning points entered by trainees during video review of radical prostatectomy cases using our surgical intelligence–enabled Film Room platform between September 2023 and July 2024. Learning point content was categorized according to surgical coaching domains as technical, cognitive, nontechnical, or descriptive. Entries were compared by surgical step and level of training. Anonymous surveys were distributed to trainees to determine perceived utility and reveal patterns of video review. Results: Thirteen trainees entered 480 unique learning points across all radical prostatectomy steps and spanning surgical coaching domains during the study period. Learning points varied by training level, with junior trainees entering points more often than senior trainees for Retzius-space dissection ( N = 73 vs 17, p < 0.01) and seminal vesicle and posterior dissection ( N = 58 vs 27, p < 0.01). Trainees used video review in preparation for both upcoming cases and performance analysis. Ninety-four percent of survey respondents reported they either agreed or strongly agreed that video review helped them develop surgical skills. Conclusions: We found usage across training levels and high perceived utility of our Film Room platform for video review of robotic prostatectomy. Implementation of video review platforms holds promise to augment existing urologic training and should be explored further.

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.

Objective To define the natural history, patterns of recurrence and treatment modalities for local prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence following radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT), and to investigate factors that could predict metastasis‐free survival (MFS) in this unique patient population. Methods We queried a prospectively maintained PCa registry to identify men developing in‐field recurrence (IFR) following RP and RT from 2008 to 2021 at a single institution. IFR was defined as biopsy‐proven recurrent PCa or the presence of persistent positron emission tomography‐avid lesions in the prior radiation field without evidence of metastasis. Cox regression was conducted to determine predictors of MFS. Kaplan–Meier methods were used to calculate MFS, cancer‐specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) for patients in three primary therapy categories: cryoablation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone, and surveillance. Results Of 4575 patients from our registry, 108 (2.3%) with IFR were identified. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to IFR from salvage treatment was 78 (50–126) months. A total of 29 patients (26%) were managed with cryoablation, 23 (21%) with ADT, and 28 (25%) with surveillance. The median (IQR) follow‐up was 76 (48–100) months. There were no statistically significant differences in MFS ( P = 0.67) or OS ( P = 0.07) among the three primary treatment cohorts. Patients treated with ADT or cryoablation had longer CSS compared to patients managed with surveillance ( P = 0.047). Conclusions We found that IFR may present years after completion of primary treatment for PCa. While curative management strategies may be attempted, local and distant metastatic recurrence is common and often requires systemic therapy.

Bladder cancer, the sixth most common cancer in the United States, is most commonly of the urothelial carcinoma histologic subtype. The clinical spectrum of bladder cancer is divided into 3 categories that differ in prognosis, management, and therapeutic aims: (1) non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC); (2) muscle invasive, nonmetastatic disease; and (3) metastatic bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer, including changes in the fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours: Urinary and Male Genital Tumours and how the NCCN Guidelines aligned with these updates; new and emerging treatment options for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)–unresponsive NMIBC; and updates to systemic therapy recommendations for advanced or metastatic disease.