Tag Archive for: Article of the Month

You are here: / Article of the Month

Posts

Editorial: New robots – cost, connectivity and artificial intelligence

/by

The amazing Da Vinci system, is about to face some market competition from other international companies with their own versions of next generation robots [1]. In order to challenge the current gold standard, these systems will need to be at least as good if not better. The alternative is to be significantly cheaper thus attracting a wider variety of institutions who could currently not afford the Da Vinci. Open consoles, 3D enhanced vision, lighter instruments and greater portability will be recurring themes in these new systems. There is even some renewed interest in automation that goes back to the days of John Wickham, who passed away just short of his 90th birthday (https://www.bjuinternational.com/bjui-blog/light-years-ahead-john-wickham-1927-2017/). The STAR robot can suture bowel better than a human hand in an animal model [2]. The water jet robot (Procept Biorobotics) takes inspiration from Wickham’s PROBOT and may prove to be a viable alternative to TURP or HOLEP but without the steep learning curve [3].

The Revo-i, a Korean robot, has completed the first clinical testing in 17 patients undergoing Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). It is an example of real-life reporting where even in experienced hands, three patients underwent blood transfusion and the positive margin rate was 23% [4]. One could speculate whether the approach itself or the adoption of a new robotic system reflected the results of this paper? Either way we can expect to see more such first in man reports over coming years as new robots become available.

These new machines have the potential to reduce the cost of robotic surgery to be similar to that of laparoscopy although the initial hardware outlay may still be substantial. Cambridge Medical Robotics (CMR), UK have plans to introduce competitive cost models which cover maintenance, instruments and even assistants as a comprehensive package. This may make robotics attractive to multidisciplinary expansion, amongst high volume open and laparoscopic surgeons.

The two other aspects in the world of new robots that are causing excitement are artificial intelligence (AI) and faster digital communication. The concept of AI is not new, going back to genius of Alan Turing, who with his decoding skills had a major impact on the outcome of World War II. Machine Learning (ML) is a subset of AI, using decision-making computer algorithms to grasp and respond to specific data, keep your professional devices in good shape with IT services Morristown New Jersey. For example, a prostate recognition algorithm could make the machine learn whether a given image is that of a prostate cancer or not, thus reducing the variability in MRI readings by radiologists. The video recordings of surgeons performing RARP can now be converted through a “black box” into Automated Performance Metrics (APMs) and demonstrate paradoxical findings in that not all high volume surgeons are necessarily those with the best outcomes [5]. With Google moving into surgical robotics in collaboration with J&J, data capture and ML are likely to hold promise for the future.

The UK government amongst others has declared significant investment of > £1billion in AI, with a view to engaging with new talent and remaining a world leader in this emerging field. Led by Dame Wendy Hall (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/growing-the-artificial-intelligence-industry-in-the-uk) this ambitious project outlines a vision of appointing new researchers from the UK and overseas in all forms of AI, while maintaining the sensitivities around data trust and ethics. However, a word of caution in that AI faces difficulty with reproducibility as a result of unpublished codes in over 90% of articles written on the subject [6].

Surgery may be further democratised in coming years with the advent of low latency ultrafast 5G connectivity. The Internet of Skills could make remote robotic surgery and mentorship easily accessible, irrespective of the location of the expert surgeon [7]. The impact of these developments on patient care will be of considerable interest to the wider surgical community.

Prokar Dasgupta FKC, Editor-in-Chief BJUI

MRC Centre for Transplantation, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, King’s College London, UK

 

References

  1. Rassweiler JJ, Autorino R, Klein J et al. Future of robotic surgery in urology. BJU Int 2017; 120: 822-841. doi:10.1111/bju.13851
  2. Shademan A, Decker RS, Opfermann JD, Leonard S, Krieger A, Kim PC. Supervised autonomous robotic soft tissue surgery. Sci Transl Med 2016;8:337ra64
  3. Gilling P, Reuther R, Kahokehr A, Fraundorfer M. Aquablation – image‐guided robot‐assisted waterjet ablation of the prostate: initial clinical experience. BJU Int 2016; 117: 923-9.
  4. Chang KD, Abdel Raheem A, Choi Y D, Chung BH, Rha KH. Retzius‐sparing robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy using the Revo‐i robotic surgical system: surgical technique and results of the first human trial. BJU Int 2018; 122: 441-448
  5. Chen J, Oh PJ, Cheng N, Shah A, Montez J, Jarc A, Guo L, Gill IS, Hung AJ. Utilization of automated performance metrics to measure surgeon performance during robotic vesicourethral anastomosis and methodical development of a training tutorial. J Urol. 2018 May 21. pii: S0022-5347(18)43237-5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.080. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 29792882
  6. Hutson M. Artificial intelligence faces reproducibility crisis. Science 16 Feb 2018: Vol. 359, Issue 6377, pp. 725-726
  7. Kim SS, Dohler M, Dasgupta P. The Internet of Skills: use of fifth‐generation telecommunications, haptics and artificial intelligence in robotic surgery. BJU Int 2018; 122: 356-359

 

Article of the Month: Retzius-sparing RARP using the Revo-i: results of the first human trial

/by

Every Month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the Revo-i robotic surgical system: surgical technique and results of the first human trial

 

Ki Don Chang*†, Ali Abdel Raheem*‡, Young Deuk Choi* , Byung Ha Chung* and Koon Ho Rha*

*Department of Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, †Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei Wonju University College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea, and ‡Department of Urology, Tanta University Medical School, Tanta, Egypt

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the safety and proficiency of the Revo‐i® robotic platform (Meere Company Inc.) in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa).

Patients and Methods

A prospective study was carried out on 17 patients with clinically localized PCa treated between 17 August 2016 and 23 February 2017 at our urology department using the Revo‐i. Patients underwent Retzius‐sparing robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RS‐RARP). The primary objective was to describe the RS‐RARP step‐by‐step surgical technique using the Revo‐i. In addition, the safety of the Revo‐i was assessed according to intra‐operative and the postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery. Early oncological outcomes were also assessed according to surgical margin status and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Continence was defined as use of no or only one pad. Surgeons’ satisfaction with the Revo‐i was assessed using the Likert scale.

Results

All surgeries were completed successfully, with no conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery. The median patient age was 72 years. The median docking time, console time, urethrovesical anastomosis time and estimated blood loss were 8 min, 92 min, 26 min and 200 mL, respectively. One patient was transfused intra‐operatively as a result of blood loss of 1 500 mL. Postoperatively, two patients received blood transfusion, and there were no other serious/major complications. The median hospital stay was 4 days. At 3 months, four patients had positive surgical margins, one patient had BCR, and 15 patients were continent. Most of surgeons were satisfied with the Revo‐i performance.

Conclusions

The first human study for the treatment of patients with localized PCa using the Revo‐i robotic surgical system was carried out successfully. The peri‐operative, early oncological and continence outcomes are encouraging. Further prospective studies are warranted to support our preliminary results.

Read more articles of the week

Video: Retzius-sparing RARP using the Revo-i – results of the first human trial

/by

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the Revo-i robotic surgical system: surgical technique and results of the first human trial

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the safety and proficiency of the Revo‐i® robotic platform (Meere Company Inc.) in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa).

Patients and Methods

A prospective study was carried out on 17 patients with clinically localized PCa treated between 17 August 2016 and 23 February 2017 at our urology department using the Revo‐i. Patients underwent Retzius‐sparing robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RS‐RARP). The primary objective was to describe the RS‐RARP step‐by‐step surgical technique using the Revo‐i. In addition, the safety of the Revo‐i was assessed according to intra‐operative and the postoperative complications within 30 days of surgery. Early oncological outcomes were also assessed according to surgical margin status and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Continence was defined as use of no or only one pad. Surgeons’ satisfaction with the Revo‐i was assessed using the Likert scale.

Results

All surgeries were completed successfully, with no conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery. The median patient age was 72 years. The median docking time, console time, urethrovesical anastomosis time and estimated blood loss were 8 min, 92 min, 26 min and 200 mL, respectively. One patient was transfused intra‐operatively as a result of blood loss of 1 500 mL. Postoperatively, two patients received blood transfusion, and there were no other serious/major complications. The median hospital stay was 4 days. At 3 months, four patients had positive surgical margins, one patient had BCR, and 15 patients were continent. Most of surgeons were satisfied with the Revo‐i performance.

Conclusions

The first human study for the treatment of patients with localized PCa using the Revo‐i robotic surgical system was carried out successfully. The peri‐operative, early oncological and continence outcomes are encouraging. Further prospective studies are warranted to support our preliminary results.

View more videos

Article of the Month: The UK‐ROPE Study

/3 Comments/by

Every Month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post. retainedfirefighter provides more articles like this one. Follow for more articles like this one songsforromance .

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one .

Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity‐matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK‐ROPE study)

 

Alistair F. Ray*, John Powell†‡, Mark J. Speakman§, Nicholas T. Longford, Ranan DasGupta**, Timothy Bryant††, Sachin Modi††, Jonathan Dyer‡‡, Mark Harris‡‡, Grace Carolan-Rees* and Nigel Hacking††

 

*Cedar, Cardiff University/Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, †Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, ‡Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, §Department of Urology, Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust, Taunton, SNTL Statistics Research and Consulting, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, **Department of Urology, St. Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, ††Department of Interventional Radiology, and ‡‡Department of Urology, Southampton General Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization (PAE) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to conduct an indirect comparison of PAE with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

Patients and Methods

As a joint initiative between the British Society of Interventional Radiologists, the British Association of Urological Surgeons and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, we conducted the UK Register of Prostate Embolization (UK‐ROPE) study, which recruited 305 patients across 17 UK urological/interventional radiology centres, 216 of whom underwent PAE and 89 of whom underwent TURP. The primary outcomes were International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) improvement in the PAE group at 12 months post‐procedure, and complication data post‐PAE. We also aimed to compare IPSS score improvements between the PAE and TURP groups, using non‐inferiority analysis on propensity‐score‐matched patient pairs. The clinical results and urological measurements were performed at clinical sites. If you want more articles like this one follow us at salbreux-pesage . IPSS and other questionnaire‐based results were mailed by patients directly to the trial unit managing the study. All data were uploaded centrally to the UK‐ROPE study database.

Results

The results showed that PAE was clinically effective, producing a median 10‐point IPSS improvement from baseline at 12 months post‐procedure. PAE did not appear to be as effective as TURP, which produced a median 15‐point IPSS score improvement at 12 months post‐procedure. These findings are further supported by the propensity score analysis, in which we formed 65 closely matched pairs of patients who underwent PAE and patients who underwent TURP. In terms of IPSS and quality‐of‐life (QoL) improvement, there was no evidence of PAE being non‐inferior to TURP. Patients in the PAE group had a statistically significant improvement in maximum urinary flow rate and prostate volume reduction at 12 months post‐procedure. PAE had a reoperation rate of 5% before 12 months and 15% after 12 months (20% total rate), and a low complication rate. Of 216 patients, one had sepsis, one required a blood transfusion, four had local arterial dissection and four had a groin haematoma. Two patients had non‐target embolization that presented as self‐limiting penile ulcers. Additional patient‐reported outcomes, pain levels and return to normal activities were very encouraging for PAE. Seventy‐one percent of PAE cases were performed as outpatient or day cases. In contrast, 80% of TURP cases required at least 1 night of hospital stay, and the majority required 2 nights.Here excelpasswordrecovery you can check the best articles of the month.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that PAE provides a clinically and statistically significant improvement in symptoms and QoL, although some of these improvements were greater in the TURP arm. The safety profile and quicker return to normal activities may be seen as highly beneficial by patients considering PAE as an alternative treatment to TURP, with the concomitant advantages of reduced length of hospital stay and need for admission after PAE. PAE is an advanced embolization technique demanding a high level of expertise, and should be performed by experienced interventional radiologists who have been trained and proctored appropriately. The use of cone‐beam computed tomography is encouraged to improve operator confidence and minimize non‐target embolizations. The place of PAE in the care pathway is between that of drugs and surgery, allowing the clinician to tailor treatment to individual patients’ symptoms, requirements and anatomical variation.

Read more articles of the week

 

Editorial: Prostate Artery Embolization

/by

Andrea Tubaro, in his editorial for European Association of Urology 2006 [1], discussed the paradigm shift in the surgical management of BPH from open surgery to TURP, and postulated that more refined and less invasive techniques would further dictate the treatment pathway to reduce cost, manage more high-risk surgical cases and reduce blood loss in a population that increasingly is on antithrombotic and anticoagulant medication, to ease the management of large prostates, and to manage BPH as a day case procedure [1].

Interventional radiology has been at the forefront of minimally invasive procedures. In 1953, Seldinger [2] published his ingenious method of introducing a catheter into the vascular system after obtaining needle access and, 10 years later, Dotter recognized the potential of catheters to be used in performing intravascular surgery [3]. Superselective prostate artery embolization (PAE) was first described by DeMeritt et al. [4]. Pisco et al. [5] from Portugal and Carnevale et al. [6] from Brazil have rightly been credited with the development of the clinical service for PAE in BPH. The study by Pisco et al. in 2016, in 630 consecutive patients with moderate to severe LUTS refractory to medical therapy for at least 6 months, showed 81.9% medium-term and 76.3% long-term clinical success rates, with no urinary incontinence or sexual dysfunction reported. Carnevale et al. [6], in 2014, described a modified PAE technique that can lead to greater ischaemia and infarction of the prostate gland with the possibility of better clinical outcomes [6].

In this edition of BJUI, the UK Register of Prostate Embolization (ROPE) study [7] provides evidence for the efficacy and safety for PAE for LUTS secondary to BPH and makes an indirect comparison with TURP. What is strikingly unique and to be applauded in this registry is the collaboration between the British Society of Interventional Radiology, the BAUS and National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).

A total of 305 patients across 17 UK centres were enrolled, and results were analysed over 12 months. They noted that patients who underwent PAE had a statistically significant improvement in urinary flow rate and reduction in prostate volume after the procedure. In terms of IPSS and quality-of-life improvement, there was no evidence of PAE being non-inferior to TURP. Seventy-one percent of PAE cases were performed as outpatients or day cases. By contrast, 80% of TURPs required at least one night of hospital stay and a majority two nights [7].

In April 2018, NICE revised their guidelines and have now approved PAE with certain recommendations [8].

The key to successful PAE, in our opinion, is careful patient selection. At our centre, we receive tertiary referrals of patients with very large prostates, many of whom are comorbid and elderly. We embraced the option of PAE and were delighted to be able to contribute a number of cases to the ROPE study. Our overall experience is now in excess of 200 cases and we are aware that some patients will do well, others less well. It is becoming clearer who those patients may be; those who do well tend to be those with the larger prostate with large lateral lobes and adenomatous predominant BPH, without a significant middle lobe, with big prostate vessels and with lower risk of significant renal insufficiency. The large middle lobes can ball-valve and still obstruct, and preoperative arterial CT could identify those with heavily calcified, severely diseased internal iliac arteries that may be difficult to embolize. Nonetheless, those patients who are at highest risk from surgery and those who wish to minimize the risks of sexual dysfunction or incontinence may justifiably opt for PAE as a less invasive outpatient procedure. And why should they not? For many, simply the opportunity to avoid long-term medication with a-blockers or 5-a-reductase inhibitors is the real benefit, and undergoing PAE does not exclude one from surgery afterwards.

Level 1 evidence is of course a fundamental requirement for a change in definitive practice; the ROPE study is a comparative cohort of two fundamentally different procedures. Our institute is a surgical centre for the management of massive BPH and we are convinced that PAE has a place in the management of some of our patients, but could prevention be better than cure? Ambitious it may be, but who is to say whether early PAE in symptomatic patients might reduce the progression of clinical BPH, avoiding the morbidity and cost of long-term medical treatment culminating in surgery. Perhaps the real challenge highlighted by the ROPE study is that the time has come to consider a randomized controlled trial of prostate embolization vs early non-surgical treatment of BPH (short title ‘PREVENT-BPH’), with randomization to PAE or either a-blockers and/or 5-a-reductase inhibitors or placebo. The ROPE study suggests that PAE at the least deserves a randomized controlled trial including it vs other non-invasive treatments.

Tarun Sabharwal and Rick Popert
Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK

Read the full article

References

  1. Tubaro A. BPH treatment: a paradigm shift. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 939–41
  2. Seldinger SI. Catheter replacement of the needle in percutaneous arteriography; a new technique. Acta Radiol 1953; 39: 368–76
  3. Dotter CT, Judkins MP. Transluminal treatment of atherosclerotic obstructions: description of a new technique and preliminary report of its applications. Circulation 1964; 30: 654–70
  4. DeMeritt JS, Elmasri FF, Esposito MP, Rosenberg GS. Relief of benign prostatic hyperplasia-related bladder outlet obstruction after transarterial polyvinyl alcohol prostate embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2000; 11: 767–70
  5. Pisco JM, Bilhim T, Pinheiro LC et al. Medium-and long-term outcome of prostate artery embolization for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: results in 630 patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2016; 27: 1115–22
  6. Carnevale FC, Moreira AM, Antunes AA. The “PErFecTED Technique”: proximal embolisation first, then embolise distal for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2014; 37: 1602–5
  7. Ray AF, Powell J, Speakman MJ et al. Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity-matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK-ROPE study). BJU Int 2018; 122: 270–82
  8. NICE Guidance. Prostate artery embolisation for lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 2018;121: 825-34

 

Infographic: The UK‐ROPE Study

/by

Infographic: Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity‐matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK‐ROPE study)

Read the full article
See more infographics

Residents’ Podcast: UK‐ROPE Study

/1 Comment/by

Maria Uloko is a Urology Resident at the University of Minnesota Hospital and Giulia Lane is a Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Fellow at the University of Michigan

In this podcast they discuss the BJUI Article of the Month ‘Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity‐matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK‐ROPE study)’

 

Efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization for benign prostatic hyperplasia: an observational study and propensity‐matched comparison with transurethral resection of the prostate (the UK‐ROPE study)

 

Alistair F. Ray*, John Powell†‡, Mark J. Speakman§, Nicholas T. Longford, Ranan DasGupta**, Timothy Bryant††, Sachin Modi††, Jonathan Dyer‡‡, Mark Harris‡‡, Grace Carolan-Rees* and Nigel Hacking††

 

*Cedar, Cardiff University/Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, †Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, ‡Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, §Department of Urology, Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust, Taunton, SNTL Statistics Research and Consulting, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, **Department of Urology, St. Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, ††Department of Interventional Radiology, and ‡‡Department of Urology, Southampton General Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the efficacy and safety of prostate artery embolization (PAE) for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to conduct an indirect comparison of PAE with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

Patients and Methods

As a joint initiative between the British Society of Interventional Radiologists, the British Association of Urological Surgeons and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, we conducted the UK Register of Prostate Embolization (UK‐ROPE) study, which recruited 305 patients across 17 UK urological/interventional radiology centres, 216 of whom underwent PAE and 89 of whom underwent TURP. The primary outcomes were International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) improvement in the PAE group at 12 months post‐procedure, and complication data post‐PAE. We also aimed to compare IPSS score improvements between the PAE and TURP groups, using non‐inferiority analysis on propensity‐score‐matched patient pairs. The clinical results and urological measurements were performed at clinical sites. IPSS and other questionnaire‐based results were mailed by patients directly to the trial unit managing the study. All data were uploaded centrally to the UK‐ROPE study database.

Results

The results showed that PAE was clinically effective, producing a median 10‐point IPSS improvement from baseline at 12 months post‐procedure. PAE did not appear to be as effective as TURP, which produced a median 15‐point IPSS score improvement at 12 months post‐procedure. These findings are further supported by the propensity score analysis, in which we formed 65 closely matched pairs of patients who underwent PAE and patients who underwent TURP. In terms of IPSS and quality‐of‐life (QoL) improvement, there was no evidence of PAE being non‐inferior to TURP. Patients in the PAE group had a statistically significant improvement in maximum urinary flow rate and prostate volume reduction at 12 months post‐procedure. PAE had a reoperation rate of 5% before 12 months and 15% after 12 months (20% total rate), and a low complication rate. Of 216 patients, one had sepsis, one required a blood transfusion, four had local arterial dissection and four had a groin haematoma. Two patients had non‐target embolization that presented as self‐limiting penile ulcers. Additional patient‐reported outcomes, pain levels and return to normal activities were very encouraging for PAE. Seventy‐one percent of PAE cases were performed as outpatient or day cases. In contrast, 80% of TURP cases required at least 1 night of hospital stay, and the majority required 2 nights.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that PAE provides a clinically and statistically significant improvement in symptoms and QoL, although some of these improvements were greater in the TURP arm. The safety profile and quicker return to normal activities may be seen as highly beneficial by patients considering PAE as an alternative treatment to TURP, with the concomitant advantages of reduced length of hospital stay and need for admission after PAE. PAE is an advanced embolization technique demanding a high level of expertise, and should be performed by experienced interventional radiologists who have been trained and proctored appropriately. The use of cone‐beam computed tomography is encouraged to improve operator confidence and minimize non‐target embolizations. The place of PAE in the care pathway is between that of drugs and surgery, allowing the clinician to tailor treatment to individual patients’ symptoms, requirements and anatomical variation.

Read more articles of the week

BJUI Podcasts now available on iTunes, subscribe here https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bju-international/id1309570262

 

Article of the Month: MRI supported transperineal prostate biopsy

/by

Every Month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy‐naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer

 

Nienke L. Hansen*1, Tristan Barrett*†, Claudia Kesch‡, Lana Pepdjonovic§, David Bonekamp, Richard O’Sullivan**, Florian Distler‡, Anne Warren*††, Christina Samel‡‡, Boris Hadaschik‡2, Jeremy Grummet§ and Christof Kastner*§§
*CamPARI Clinic, †Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, ‡Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, §Australian Urology Associates and Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany, **Healthcare Imaging and Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia, ††Department of Pathology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, ‡‡Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany, and §§Department of Urology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 

 

Current addresses: 1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology University Hospital Cologne Cologne Germany, 2Department of Urology University Hospital Essen Essen Germany. 

 

B.H., J.G., and C.K. contributed equally to this work.

 

Read the full article

Abstract

Objectives

To analyse the detection rates of primary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐fusion transperineal prostate biopsy using combined targeted and systematic core distribution in three tertiary referral centres.

Patients and Methods

In this multicentre, prospective outcome study, 807 consecutive biopsy‐naïve patients underwent MRI‐guided transperineal prostate biopsy, as the first diagnostic intervention, between 10/2012 and 05/2016. MRI was reported following the Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) criteria. In all, 236 patients had 18–24 systematic transperineal biopsies only, and 571 patients underwent additional targeted biopsies either by MRI‐fusion or cognitive targeting if PI‐RADS ≥3 lesions were present. Detection rates for any and Gleason score 7–10 cancer in targeted and overall biopsy were calculated and predictive values were calculated for different PI‐RADS and PSA density (PSAD) groups.

Results

Cancer was detected in 68% of the patients (546/807) and Gleason score 7–10 cancer in 49% (392/807). The negative predictive value of 236 PI‐RADS 1–2 MRI in combination with PSAD of <0.1 ng/mL/mL for Gleason score 7–10 was 0.91 (95% confidence interval ± 0.07, 8% of study population). In 418 patients with PI‐RADS 4–5 lesions using targeted plus systematic biopsies, the cancer detection rate of Gleason score 7–10 was significantly higher at 71% vs 59% and 61% with either approach alone (P < 0.001). For 153 PI‐RADS 3 lesions, the detection rate was 31% with no significant difference to systematic biopsies with 27% (P > 0.05). Limitations include variability of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) reading and Gleason grading.

Conclusion

MRI‐based transperineal biopsy performed at high‐volume tertiary care centres with a significant experience of prostate mpMRI and image‐guided targeted biopsies yielded high detection rates of Gleason score 7–10 cancer. Prostate biopsies may not be needed for men with low PSAD and an unsuspicious MRI. In patients with high probability lesions, combined targeted and systematic biopsies are recommended.

Read more articles of the week

Editorial: Systematic transperineal and MRI‐targeted biopsies: the resolution of uncertainty

/by

The paper published in this issue of the BJUI titled ‘Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal biopsy in biopsy‐naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer’ is timely and helps to resolve some of the uncertainty inherent within the diagnostic pathway 1.

The publication of the PROstate MRI Imaging Study (PROMIS) study, although demonstrating that 25% of patients might avoid prostate biopsy with a normal MRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI‐RADS] 1–2) and that MRI could identify 90% of patients with high‐risk disease (PI‐RADS 5), did not resolve the issue of what to do with equivocal PI‐RADS 3 scans, uncertainty remained 2. The recent publication of the PRECISION trial (Prostate Evaluation for Clinically Important Disease: Sampling Using Image Guidance or Not?) has only contributed to the uncertainty of systematic TRUS biopsy and has shown that targeted biopsies resolve the issue for <50% of the patients overall and only 12% of those with PI‐RADS 3 lesions had a diagnosis of cancer on targeted biopsy only 3. The study has shown that in the face of an identifiable lesion a MRI‐targeted biopsy is non‐inferior to a blind systematic TRUS biopsy, which was positive in only 28% and implies that a systematic biopsy may be unnecessary, so where does that leave us? The uncertainty within MRI remains at the PI‐RADS 3 level, and particularly with a TRUS biopsy that is not a systematic biopsy of the peripheral zone. The authors of the paper highlighted in this issue of the BJUI 1 help to resolve the issue because they describe a more systematic biopsy.

The transperineal (TP) biopsy approach for systematic and targeted biopsy they use is that which was adopted by the Ginsburg Study Group on Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics 4. It is a systematic biopsy that preferentially targets the peripheral zone in a sectoral fashion. It avoids the oversampling inherent in template‐mapping biopsy and the under‐sampling of the non‐systematic transrectal biopsy. Their paper evaluates the combination of an MRI‐targeted biopsy with a systematic TP biopsy. It confirms, as suggested by the PROMIS study, that patients with PI‐RADS 1 or 2 prostates on MRI with a low PSA density <0.1 ng/mL/mL could safely avoid biopsy, based upon a negative predictive value of 0.91 on systematic biopsy. However, in 418 patients with PI‐RADS 4–5 lesions, it was the combination of a targeted and systematic TP biopsy that achieved an overall cancer detection rate of 71%, but that MRI‐targeted biopsies alone had a detection rate of 59% vs 61% for systematic TP biopsies. In the PI‐RAD 3 equivocal group the combined biopsy identified 30% with Gleason score 7–10, whereas targeted biopsy only was positive in 21% vs 27% with systematic biopsies.

The message is clear.

An appropriate systematic biopsy targeted to the peripheral zone remains an essential component of prostate diagnosis even in the MRI era, as indeed it did before MRI was available. In the pre‐MRI days, about one‐third of patients that had negative TRUS biopsies had cancer on TP biopsies and a third of those thought suitable for AS on TRUS biopsy had more significant disease. I suspect in the modern era that figure remains unchanged for those with PI‐RADS 1, 2 or 3, particularly with a PSA density >0.15 ng/mL/mL. As urologists we have always been criticised for over diagnosing and over treating prostate cancer but I suspect that the more heinous crime is that of under treatment of significant disease, it is the very reason why I started doing TP biopsies, to resolve uncertainty. I consider that MRI, for all its benefits in the diagnostic algorithm, cannot yet resolve that uncertainty.

Probably the only patients that merit a target‐only biopsy are those with the high‐PSA, large‐volume disease, easily visible on MRI and usually palpable. Prostate biopsy can be avoided or at least deferred in the PI‐RADS 1–2 group with low PSA density; the rest should be offered a systematic biopsy along with a targeted biopsy. This may be less important in those proceeding to whole gland treatment or surgical extirpation but remains essential in those considering active surveillance, brachytherapy, or any one of the myriad of unproven focal treatments becoming available. The authors should be congratulated for bringing some certainty to uncertainty.

Rick Popert
Urology Centre, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK

 

Read the full article
References
  • 1 Hansen NL, Barrett T, Kesch C et al. Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy‐naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018; 122: 40–9

 

  • 2 Ahmed HU, El‐Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi‐parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815–22

 

 

  • 4 Kuru TH, Wadhwa K, Chang RT et al. Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics. BJU Int 2013; 112: 568–77

 

Article of the Month: BAUS consensus on priapism

/by

Every Month, the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Month from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

BAUS consensus document for the management of male genital emergencies: priapism

 

Asif Muneer, Gareth Brown, Trevor Dorkin, Marc Lucky, Richard Pearcy, Majid Shabbir, Chitranjan J. Shukl,a Rowland W. Rees & Duncan J. Summerton

BAUS Section of Andrology Genitourethral Surgery

 

Read the full article

 

Abstract

Male genital emergencies relating to the penis and scrotum are rare and require prompt investigation and surgical intervention. Clinicians are often unfamiliar with the management of these conditions and may not work in a specialist centre with on‐site expertise in genitourethral surgery. A series of consensus statements have been developed by an expert consensus committee comprising members of the BAUS Section of Andrology and Genitourethral Surgery together with experts from urology units throughout the UK. Priapism requires prompt assessment and treatment and these consensus statements provide guidance for UK practice.

Read more articles of the week
© 2024 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.