Finelli, Antonio

Importance Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without prostate biopsy, has become the standard of care for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. Resource capacity limits widespread adoption. Biparametric MRI, which omits the gadolinium contrast sequence, is a shorter and cheaper alternative offering time-saving capacity gains for health systems globally. Objective To assess whether biparametric MRI is noninferior to multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants A prospective, multicenter, within-patient, noninferiority trial of biopsy-naive men from 22 centers (12 countries) with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (elevated prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings) from April 2022 to September 2023, with the last follow-up conducted on December 3, 2024. Interventions Participants underwent multiparametric MRI, comprising T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast–enhanced (DCE) sequences. Radiologists reported abbreviated biparametric MRI first (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted), blinded to the DCE sequence. After unblinding, radiologists reported the full multiparametric MRI. Patients underwent a targeted biopsy with or without systematic biopsy if either biparametric MRI or multiparametric MRI was suggestive of clinically significant prostate cancer. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcome was the proportion of men with clinically significant prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men with clinically insignificant cancer. The noninferiority margin was 5%. Results Of 555 men recruited, 490 were included for primary outcome analysis. Median age was 65 (IQR, 59-70) years and median PSA level was 5.6 (IQR, 4.4-8.0) ng/mL. The proportion of patients with abnormal digital rectal examination findings was 12.7%. Biparametric MRI was noninferior to multiparametric MRI, detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in 143 of 490 men (29.2%), compared with 145 of 490 men (29.6%) (difference, −0.4 [95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4] percentage points; P = .50). Biparametric MRI detected clinically insignificant cancer in 45 of 490 men (9.2%), compared with 47 of 490 men (9.6%) with the use of multiparametric MRI (difference, −0.4 [95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4] percentage points). Central quality control demonstrated that 99% of scans were of adequate diagnostic quality. Conclusion and relevance In men with suspected prostate cancer, provided image quality is adequate, an abbreviated biparametric MRI scan, with or without targeted biopsy, could become the new standard of care for prostate cancer diagnosis. With approximately 4 million prostate MRIs performed globally annually, adopting biparametric MRI could substantially increase scanner throughput and reduce costs worldwide. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04571840

610 Background: Personalized treatment for clinical T1 renal cortical masses (RCMs) should account for competing risks related to tumor and patient characteristics. Using a contemporary multi-institutional cohort, we developed treatment-specific prediction models for cancer-specific mortality (CSM), other-cause mortality (OCM), and 90-day complication rates for patients managed with surgery, thermal ablation (TA), and active surveillance (AS). Methods: Preoperative clinical and radiological features were collected for eligible patients aged 18-91 years treated at four academic centers from 2000-2016. Prediction models used competing risks regressions for CSM and OCM and logistic regressions for 90-day Clavien >3 complications, adjusting for tumor size as well as patient age, sex, ECOG performance status (PS), and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Predictions accounted for missing data using multiple imputation. Results: After excluding 25 patients with no follow-up, the cohort included 4995 patients treated with radical nephrectomy (RN, n=1270), partial nephrectomy (PN, n=2842), thermal ablation (n=479), or active surveillance (n=404). Median follow-up was 5.1 years (IQR 2.5-8.5). Predictions from the fitted model are shown in an online calculator ( https://rgulati.shinyapps.io/rcc-risk-calculator ). To illustrate the use of this calculator for a specific patient, a 70-year-old female with a 5.5 cm RCM, PS of 2, and CCI of 3 has a predicted 5-year CSM of 4-7% across treatments, 5-year OCM of 34-49%, and 90-day risk of Clavien ≥3 complications of 4%, 10%, and 6% for RN, PN, and TA respectively. Conclusions: Personalized treatment selection for cT1 RCM is challenging. We present a competing risk calculator that incorporates pretreatment features to quantify competing causes of mortality and treatment-associated complications. Pending validation, this tool may be used in clinical practice to provide patients with estimated individualized treatment-specific probabilities of competing causes of death and complication risks to facilitate shared decision-making.

Purpose In April 2017, the American Urological Association, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Urologic Oncology released a joint evidence-based practice guideline on clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO Expert Panel then reviewed the content and the recommendations. Results The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline were clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer guideline except for two recommendations on cryosurgery. The two recommendations covering cryosurgery were not endorsed because the panel found that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of cryotherapy in this setting. Recommendations The ASCO Expert Panel endorsed all but two of the original guideline recommendations as written and offered a series of discussion points to guide practice.