Prostate biopsy is the gold standard diagnostic technique for the detection of prostate cancer. Patient selection for prostate biopsy is complex and is influenced by emerging use of prebiopsy imaging. The introduction of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy has clear advantages over the historical standard of care. There are several biopsy techniques currently utilized with unique advantages and disadvantages. We review and summarize the current body of literature pertaining to when and how a prostate biopsy should be performed. We discuss current recommendations regarding patient selection for biopsy and discuss future directions regarding prebiopsy imaging. We offer a description of the MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy technique and a comparison of many of the currently available fusion software platforms. Articles pertaining to the title were obtained via PubMed index search with relevant keywords supplemented with personal collection of related publications. Prostate biopsy should be considered for patients with gross digital rectal exam (DRE) abnormality, patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) greater than 4 ng/ml, and concomitant risk factors for prostate cancer or patients with lesions identified on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 2 (PI-RADS2) score of 4 or 5. MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy has demonstrated advantages in cancer detection when compared with TRUS-guided biopsy. There are currently several fusion software platforms available with a variety of biopsy approaches. Future efforts should detail the role of prebiopsy imaging as a triage tool for prostate biopsy. Consensus should be sought regarding the preferred modality of fusion biopsy. Additional data describing each fusion software platform would enable a more rigorous comparison of platform sensitivities.

Background. Metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) is associated with a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of 4–15 months. Despite new insights into the genetic and molecular background of MUM, satisfactory systemic treatment approaches are currently lacking. The study results of innovative treatment strategies are urgently needed. Patients and Methods. This was a retrospective case series of 8 patients with MUM managed at the University of Cincinnati between January 2015 and January 2018. The immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST) 1.1 criteria were used for patient evaluation, and magnetic resonance imaging was used for evaluation at treatment checkpoints. Objective. To assess the clinical outcome of patients with MUM treated with a combination of checkpoint inhibitors. Results. The series included eight patients, six men and two women, with MUM. Their median age at MUM diagnosis was 69 (range, 55–77) years. All patients were treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab combination along with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), followed by nivolumab maintenance and monthly TACE procedures. The majority of patients had a partial response or stable disease. Two of the patients had partial response, while four others had stable disease. Two other patients experienced disease progression. Conclusion. We report the outcomes of eight patients with MUM treated with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. We report the clinical outcome and toxicity associated with this treatment approach. Further studies are warranted to explore immunotherapy in MUM. These findings support the consideration of immunotherapy in MUM.

Trans-oral robotic surgery (TORS) has emerged as an important surgical treatment option in the management of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive and -negative oropharynx cancer. However, treatment selection is paramount to ensure that patients will not require multimodality adjuvant therapy. In this study, we determined predictors of adjuvant therapy in TORS-treated patients. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients with newly diagnosed clinical T1-T4, N0-N3 oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent TORS between 2010–2016. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to estimate overall survival (OS). A total of 2999 patients were studied, and the five-year OS for the entire cohort was 82.5%, and for HPV-positive and -negative cohorts it was 88.3% and 67.9%, respectively (p < 0.001). Among all patients treated with TORS, 35.1% of patients received no additional treatment, 33.5% received adjuvant radiation alone (RT), and 31.3% received adjuvant chemoradiation. The N stage was pathologically upstaged in 629 (20.9%) patients after TORS. Patients treated at higher-volume centers were more likely to have negative surgical margins (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94, 0.98, p < 0.001), but this did not influence the receipt of adjuvant therapy. The high rate of adjuvant multimodality treatment after TORS suggests a need for improved patient selection. Limitations of this study, including lack of data on loco-regional control, progression free survival, acute and late toxicities, and utilization of pretreatment PET/CT imaging, should be addressed in future studies.

Purpose/Objective(s): Microbiome has been shown to affect tumorigenesis by promoting inflammation. However, the association between the upper aerodigestive microbiome and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is not well established. Hypoxia is a modifiable factor associated with poor radiation response. Our study analyzed the HNSCC tumor samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) to investigate the relationship between different HNSCC tumor subsites, hypoxia, and local tumor microbiome composition. Results: A total of 357 patients were included [Oral cavity (OC) = 226, Oropharynx (OPx) = 53, and Larynx/Hypopharynx (LHPx) = 78], of which 12.8%, 71.7%, and 10.3%, respectively, were HPV positive. The mean (SD) hypoxia scores were 30.18 (11.10), 24.31 (14.13), and 29.53 (12.61) in OC, OPx, and LHPx tumors, respectively, with higher values indicating greater hypoxia. The hypoxia score was significantly higher for OC tumors compared to OPx (p = 0.044) and LHPx (p = 0.002). There was no significant correlation between hypoxia and HPV status. Pseudomonas sp. in OC, Actinomyces sp. and Sulfurimonas sp. in OPx, and Filifactor, Pseudomonas and Actinomyces sp. in LHPx had the strongest association with the hypoxia score. Materials/Methods: Tumor RNAseq samples from TCGA were processed, and the R package “tmesig” was used to calculate gene expression signature, including the Buffa hypoxia (BH) score, a validated hypoxia signature using 52 hypoxia-regulated genes. Microbe relative abundances were modeled with primary tumor location and a high vs. low tertile BH score applying a gamma-distributed generalized linear regression using the “stats” package in R, with adjusted p-value < 0.05 considered significant. Conclusions: In our study, oral cavity tumors were found to be more hypoxic compared to other head and neck subsites, which could potentially contribute to their radiation resistance. For each subsite, distinct microbial populations were over-represented in hypoxic tumors in a subsite-specific manner. Further studies focusing on an association between microbiome, hypoxia, and patient outcomes are warranted.

ICIs have expanded treatment options for HNSCC. A minority of the patients respond to these expensive treatments. This is a single institutional retrospective review on 121 unresectable or metastatic HNSCC patients treated with ICIs. We predicted that inflammatory markers available through routine blood work, in addition to clinical characteristics may divide patients into groups more or less likely to respond to these agents. Here we develop and internally validate our nomogram to predict survival in patients treated with ICIs.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) treatment in recurrent/metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) offers new therapeutic venues. We have previously developed a predictive survival model in this patient population based on clinical parameters, and the purpose of this study was to expand the study cohort and internally validate the model.Methods: A single institutional retrospective analysis of R/M HNSCC patients treated with ICI. Clinical parameters collected included p-16 status, hemoglobin (Hb), albumin (Alb), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), neutrophil, lymphocyte and platelet counts. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess the impact of patient characteristics and clinical variables on survival. A nomogram was created using thermspackage to generate individualized survival prediction.Results: 201 patients were included, 47 females (23%), 154 males (77%). Median age was 61 years (IQR: 55-68). P-16 negative (66%). Median OS was 12 months (95% CI: 9.4, 14.9). Updated OS model included age, sex, absolute neutrophil count, absolute lymphocyte count, albumin, hemoglobin, LDH, and p-16 status. We stratified patients into three risk groups based on this model at the 0.33 and 0.66 quantiles. Median OS in the optimal risk group reached 23.7 months (CI: 18.5, NR), 13.8 months (CI: 11.1, 20.3) in the average risk group, and 2.3 months (CI: 1.7, 4.4) in the high-risk group. Following internal validation, the discriminatory power of the model reached a c-index of 0.72 and calibration slope of 0.79.Conclusions: Our updated nomogram could assist in the precise selection of patients for which ICI could be beneficial and cost-effective.