Background: To determine the correlation between urine loss in PAD-test after catheter removal, and early urinary continence (UC) in RP treated patients. Methods: Urine loss was measured by using a standardized, validated PAD-test within 24 h after removal of the transurethral catheter, and was grouped as a loss of 50 g of urine, respectively. Early UC (median: 3 months) was defined as the usage of no or one safety-pad. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models tested the correlation between PAD-test results and early UC. Covariates consisted of age, BMI, nerve-sparing approach, prostate volume, and extraprostatic extension of tumor. Results: From 01/2018 to 03/2021, 100 patients undergoing RP with data available for a PAD-test and early UC were retrospectively identified. Ultimately, 24%, 47%, 15%, and 14% of patients had a loss of urine 50 g in PAD-test, respectively. Additionally, 59% of patients reported to be continent. In multivariable logistic regression models, urine loss in PAD-test predicted early UC (OR: 0.21 vs. 0.09 vs. 0.03; for urine loss 1–10 g vs. 11–50 g vs. >50 g, Ref: <1 g; all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Urine loss after catheter removal strongly correlated with early continence as well as a severity in urinary incontinence.

Background/Objectives: Progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is defined either biochemically, radiographically or both. Moreover, staging for mCRPC can be performed either conventionally or with molecular imaging such as prostate-specific membrane antigen computer tomography (PSMA-PET/CT). Methods: We relied on the Frankfurt Metastatic Cancer Database of the Prostate (FRAMCAP) database to compare progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes regarding the cause of castration resistance and the staging modality used. Results: Overall, 35% progressed to mCRPC biochemically vs. 23% radiographically vs. 42% biochemically + radiographically. The PSA nadir in mHSPC (1.4 vs. 0.4 vs. 0.8 ng/mL) and PSA level at mCRPC progression (15 vs. 2 vs. 21 ng/mL, both p ≤ 0.01) were significantly higher for biochemical vs. radiographic vs. both progressed patients. In PFS and OS analyses, no significant differences were observed among all three compared groups. In the comparison of the staging used for progression to mCRPC, 67% received conventional vs. 33% PSMA-PET/CT, with higher metastatic burden in mHSPC and osseous lesions in mCRPC for conventionally staged patients (both p < 0.01). In PFS (15.3 vs. 10.1 months, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75) and OS analyses (52.6 vs. 34.3 months, HR: 0.61, both p < 0.05), PSMA-PET/CT harbored better prognosis; however, this did not hold after multivariable adjustment. Similar results were observed for further analyses in second- and third-line mCRPC or patients with a PSA level of ≥2 ng/mL. Conclusions: The cause of progression to mCRPC seems not to influence cancer-control outcomes, despite important baseline tumor characteristic differences. The PSMA-PET/CT staging modality might be associated with better PFS and OS outcomes, possibly due to its more sensitive detection of progression or new metastatic lesions.

Background: A remarkable paradigm shift has emerged regarding the preferred prostate biopsy approach, favoring the transperineal (TP) over the transrectal (TR) approach due to the reduced risk of severe urinary tract infections. However, its impact on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) remains unclear. Materials and methods: We relied on a prospectively maintained tertiary care database to identify patients who underwent either TP or TR prostate biopsy between 01/2014 and 12/2023. Of those, only patients with suspicious magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) PIRADS lesions (Likert-scale: 3,4,5) received MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies. Detection rates of csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥ 2) were compared between biopsy approach (TP vs. TR) according to index lesion. Subsequently, uni- and multivariable logistic regression models were applied to investigate the predictive status of the biopsy approach within each subcohort. Results: Of 2063 patients, 1118 (54%) underwent combined MRI-guided and systematic prostate biopsy and were included in the final cohort. Of those, 127 (11%) and 991 (89%) underwent TP vs. TR. CsPCa rates, regardless of differences in patients’ demographics and distribution of index PIRDAS lesions, did not differ statistically significantly and were 51 vs. 52%, respectively (p = 0.8). CsPCa detection rates for PIRDAS-3, PIRADS-4 and PIRADS-5 did not differ and were 24 vs. 23%, 48 vs. 51% and 72 vs. 76% for PIRADS-3, PIRADS-4 and PIRADS-5 subgroups for TP vs. TR, respectively (all p ≥ 0.9) Conclusions: The current results support the available data indicating that TP biopsy approach is comparable to transrectal biopsy approach regarding csPCa detection rates.

The impact of statin use on localized prostate cancer (PCa) remains controversial, especially for patients treated with radiation therapy. We assessed the impact of statin use on biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients treated for PCa with different modalities of radiation therapy. We evaluated 3555 patients undergoing radiation therapy between January 2001 and January 2022. The impact of statin use on BCR was analyzed for three treatment groups: external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), low-dose-rate seed brachytherapy (LDR), and EBRT plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy (EBRT + HDR). Median follow-up was 52 months among 1208 patients treated with EBRT, 1679 patients treated with LDR, and 599 patients treated with EBRT + HDR. A total of 1544 (43%) patients were taking a statin at the time of treatment, and 497 (14%) patients were in the D’Amico high-risk group. Only intermediate-risk patients treated with LDR fared better with statin use in univariate analysis (p = 0.025). This association was not significant in multivariate analysis (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18–1.10, p = 0.06). Statin use was not associated with a reduced risk of BCR in patients treated with radiation therapy. In the era of precision medicine, further investigation is needed to assess the benefit of statins in well-defined patients.

Purpose: While epigenetic profiling discovered biomarkers in several tumor entities, its application in prostate cancer is still limited. We explored DNA methylation-based deconvolution of benign and malignant prostate tissue for biomarker discovery and the potential of radiomics as a non-invasive surrogate. Methods: We retrospectively included 30 patients (63 [58–79] years) with prostate cancer (PCa) who had a multiparametric MRI of the prostate before radical prostatectomy between 2014 and 2019. The control group comprised four patients with benign prostate tissue adjacent to the PCa lesions and four patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Tissue punches of all lesions were obtained. DNA methylation analysis and reference-free in silico deconvolution were conducted to retrieve Latent Methylation Components (LCMs). LCM-based clustering was analyzed for cellular composition and correlated with clinical disease parameters. Additionally, PCa and adjacent benign lesions were analyzed using radiomics to predict the epigenetic signatures non-invasively. Results: LCMs identified two clusters with potential prognostic impact. Cluster one was associated with malignant prostate tissue (p < 0.001) and reduced immune-cell-related signatures (p = 0.004) of CD19 and CD4 cells. Cluster one comprised exclusively malignant prostate tissue enriched for significant prostate cancer and advanced tumor stages (p < 0.03 for both). No radiomics model could non-invasively predict the epigenetic clusters. Conclusion: Epigenetic clusters were associated with prognostically and clinically relevant metrics in prostate cancer. Further, immune cell-related signatures differed significantly between prognostically favorable and unfavorable clusters. Further research is necessary to explore potential diagnostic and therapeutic implications.