AUA 2018: MRI-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation (TULSA) in Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Results of TACT Pivotal Study
San Francisco, CA (UroToday.com) Given the well-known side effect profile of radical treatment for localized prostate cancer, there is an ever-present desire to be able to treat men with minimally invasive techniques without compromising the opportunity for cure. These modalities include but are not limited to cryotherapy, HIFU, laser ablation, etc. The internationally renowned Dr. Laurence Klotz from Toronto, Canada presented the preliminary results from the TACT study - MRI-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation (TULSA) in Patients with Localized Prostate Cancer.
AUA 2018: Validation of the Decipher Biopsy Test to Predict Adverse Pathology in Men Diagnosed with Low and Favorable Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer
San Francisco, CA (UroToday.com) The Decipher Biopsy (Bx) test has been validated to predict metastasis and prostate cancer specific mortality in men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). In this study, the authors validated Decipher Bx for the prediction of high-grade or stage (HGS) PCa at radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with NCCN low and favorable-intermediate risk group PCa.
AUA 2018: The Men’s Eating and Living (MEAL) Study: A Randomized Clinical Trial of a Diet Intervention in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer
San Francisco, CA (UroToday.com) A decade ago, J Kellogg Parsons, MD and colleagues published their pilot trial of the Men’s Eating and Living (MEAL) study, assessing the feasibility of implementing a diet-based intervention in men with prostate cancer1. Among 74 men aged 50-80 were randomized to receive either telephone-based dietary counseling or standardize, written nutritional information. In the intervention arm, the mean daily intakes of total vegetables, crucifers, tomato products, and beans/legumes increased by 76%, 143%, 292%, and 95%, respectively, whereas fat intake decreased by 12% (p = 0.02).
AUA 2018: Biomarker Debate: Adopt, Expand, Trust (PRO)
San Francisco, CA (UroToday.com) Matt Cooperberg, MD provided the pro position for the use of biomarkers in prostate cancer at the much-anticipated biomarker debate at the International Prostate Forum at the 2018 AUA meeting. Cooperberg started his talk by highlighting the current biomarker landscape in 2018:
AUA 2018: Biomarker Debate: Adopt, Expand, Trust (CON)
San Francisco, CA (UroToday.com) Ben Davies, MD from the University of Pittsburgh provided the rebuttal to Matt Cooperberg’s argument for prostate cancer biomarkers. Davies started with a case of a 51-year-old healthy man with a PSA of 6 and one core of Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer. A Decipher test score of <0.45 would place this gentleman in the low genomic classifier group, and coupled with being NCCN low-favorable intermediate risk, this would give this patient a 6-tier clinical-genomic risk group score of 1 (low risk). More to come from this case…
AUA 2018: Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline Amendment 2018
San Francisco, CA (UroToday.com) David F. Jarrard, MD provided an update on the CRPC AUA guideline amendment at 113th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urological Association (AUA). Dr. Jarrard highlights, the six index patients associated with the CRPC guidelines assists in clinical decision making, representing the most common clinical scenarios that are encountered in clinical practice. Guideline statements are developed to provide a rational basis for treatment based on currently available published data. The purpose of this guideline amendment is essentially to update current management of index patient 1: asymptomatic non-metastatic CRPC (nmCRPC).
AUA 2018: Performance Of Quantitative Gleason Grading: A Head to Head Comparison with CAPRA Score and D`Amico Groups
San Francisco, CA (UroToday.com) Predictive nomograms and decision tools are very important in prostate cancer to help counsel patients on the most appropriate management steps for their disease. Preoperative risk tools, in particular, can help both patients and surgeons understand oncological risks and could lead to a better understanding of the tradeoffs being made for each patient by certain treatment approaches.