Boorjian, S.

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.

Background The optimal management of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) remains controversial, particularly in the absence of clinical or radiographic evidence of disease. Salvage radiotherapy (SRT) remains standard of care, but it is unclear whether SRT benefits patients when modern imaging with a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and prostate‐specific membrane antigen‐positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA‐PET/CT) are negative for local recurrence. Retrospective data comparing SRT to observation for such patients is fraught with selection bias, underscoring the need for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Study Design and Methods The Biochemical Recurrence Irradiation or Observation (BRIO) is a randomised study under the DIVINE trial framework (NCT06378866) enrolling men with BCR (prostate‐specific antigen [PSA] level ≥0.2, up to 1.5 ng/mL) after RP with no radiographic evidence of recurrence on mpMRI and PSMA‐PET/CT. Major inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after RP with a PSA level between 0.2 and 1.5 ng/mL, and no local or metastatic recurrence on imaging. A total of 312 patients will be enrolled. Participants are randomised 1:1 to standard‐of‐care SRT followed by surveillance (Group A), or initial observation with subsequent image‐guided therapy at radiographic progression (Group B). Based on historical analysis, a total of 30 metastasis events provides 80% power to detect a significant improvement (hazard ratio 0.5 corresponding to a 5‐year metastasis‐free proportion of 80.7% in the control group and 89.8% in the experimental group with one‐sided type I error rate of 0.15). All participants undergo baseline blood collection to measure prostate cancer‐extracellular vesicles and cell‐free DNA for biomarker development. Participants are followed in a 16‐week cycle with serial PSA measurements, repeat imaging if PSA doubles, safety assessment, and patient‐reported outcomes. Endpoints The primary endpoint is distant recurrence‐free survival at 5‐years using a 12‐month landmark to mitigate bias arising from differing assessment schedules for patients receiving optional 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. Key secondary outcomes include time to hormone therapy, quality of life measures, adverse effects, and novel blood and urine biomarkers. Conclusion The BRIO study will clarify the clinical benefit of immediate SRT vs observation with image‐guided intervention in mpMRI and PET‐negative BCR after RP.

Background: Although previous literature shows tumor location as a prognostic factor in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), there remains uninvestigated regarding the impact of tumor location on grade concordance and discrepancies between ureteroscopic (URS) biopsy and final radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) pathology. Methods: In this international study, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 1,498 patients with UTUC who underwent diagnostic URS with concomitant biopsy followed by RNU between 2005 and 2020. Tumor location was divided into four sections: the calyceal-pelvic system, proximal ureter, middle ureter, and distal ureter. Patients with multifocal tumors were excluded from the study. We performed multiple comparison tests and logistic regression analyses. Results: Overall, 1,154 patients were included; 54.4% of those with low-grade URS biopsies were upgraded on RNU. In the multiple comparison tests, middle ureter tumors exhibited the highest probability of upgrading, meanwhile pelvicalyceal tumors exhibited the lowest probability of upgrading (73.7% vs 48.5%, p = 0.007). Downgrading was comparable across all tumor locations. On multivariate analyses, middle ureteral location was significantly associated with a low probability of grade concordance (odds ratio [OR] 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35–1.00; p = 0.049) and an increased risk of upgrading (OR 2.80; 95% CI, 1.20–6.52; p = 0.017). The discordance did not vary regardless of caliceal location, including the lower calyx. Conclusions: Middle ureteral tumors diagnosed to be low grade had a high probability to be undergraded. Our data can inform providers and their patients regarding the likelihood of undergrading according to tumor location, facilitating patient counseling and shared decision making regarding the choice of kidney sparing vs RNU.