Introduction: The association between human papilloma virus (HPV) and the pathogenesis of prostate cancer (PCa) is still controversial. Existing studies often lack information about clinical risk factors, are limited by their retrospective design or only use a single detection method for HPV. Material and Methods: A total of 140 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for PCa at the Department of Urology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany, were prospectively enrolled. Knowledge of HPV and sociodemographic parameters were assessed with questionnaires. The following methods were used for HPV detection: RP specimens were tested for HPV DNA by PCR. If HPV DNA was detected, an LCD-Array hybridization technique was used for HPV subtyping, and immunohistochemical staining for p16 was performed as a surrogate marker for HPV infection. Serological titers of HPV-16 L1 antibodies were measured using an HPV-16-specific immunoassay. Results: HPV DNA was detected in 9.3% (13/140) of RP specimens, with HPV-16 being the most predominantly detected subtype (5/13 = 39%). HPV-16 L1 antibody levels were below the limit of detection in 98% of patients (137/140). We found no significant difference between HPV PCR-positive (HPV+) and -negative (HPV-) patients in terms of HPV-16 antibody levels, history of HPV-associated diseases, level of education or marital status. Seventy-five percent of all PCa patients had never heard of HPV before. An acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate was the most frequently detected histologic type in both HPV+ (100%) and HPV− (98%) patients (p = 0.86). HPV+ patients had fewer positive biopsy cores (3.5 vs. 5.8; p = 0.01) and a lower maximal tumor infiltration rate per core (37% vs. 57%; p = 0.03) compared to HPV- patients. However, when analyzing the whole prostate and the lymph nodes after RP, there were no significant differences in TNM stage, Gleason score or tumor volume between both groups. In a subgroup analysis of all high-risk HPV patients (n = 6), we found no significant differences in sociodemographic, clinical or histopathological parameters compared to HPV- or low-risk HPV+ patients. Conclusion: In our prospective study, we were not able to prove a clinically significant impact of HPV status on tumor characteristics in RP specimens. Most men with PCa had never heard of HPV, despite its proven causal association with other tumor entities.

Objective: Over the last decade, active surveillance (AS) of low-risk prostate cancer has been increasing. The mpMRI fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate (FBx) is considered to be the gold standard in preoperative risk stratification. However, the role of FBx remains unclear in terms of risk stratification of low-risk prostate cancer outside high-volume centers. The aim of this study was to evaluate adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy (RP) in a real-world setting, focusing on patients diagnosed with Gleason score (GS) 6 prostate cancer (PCa) and eligible for AS by FBx. Subjects and Methods: Between March 2015 and March 2022, 1297 patients underwent FBx at the Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany. MpMRI for FBx was performed by 111 different radiology centers. FBx was performed by 14 urologists from our department with different levels of experience. In total, 997/1297 (77%) patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer; 492/997 (49%) of these patients decided to undergo RP in our clinic and were retrospectively included. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate clinical and histopathological parameters associated with adverse pathology comparing FBx and RP specimens. To compare FBx and systematic randomized biopsies performed in our clinic before introducing FBx (SBx, n = 2309), we performed a propensity score matching on a 1:1 ratio, adjusting for age, number of positive biopsy cores, and initial PSA (iPSA). Results: A total of 492 patients undergoing FBx or SBx was matched. In total, 55% of patients diagnosed with GS 6 by FBx were upgraded to clinically significant PCa (defined as GS ≥ 7a) after RP, compared to 52% of patients diagnosed by SBx (p = 0.76). A time delay between FBx and RP was identified as the only correlate associated with upgrading. A total of 5.9% of all FBx patients and 6.1% of all SBx patients would have been eligible for AS (p > 0.99) but decided to undergo RP. The positive predictive value of AS eligibility (diagnosis of low-risk PCa after biopsy and after RP) was 17% for FBx and 6.7% for SBx (p = 0.39). Conclusions: In this study, we show, in a real-world setting, that introducing FBx did not lead to significant change in ratio of adverse pathology for low-risk PCa patients after RP compared to SBx.