Prostate cancer diagnosis requires biopsy, traditionally performed under local anaesthetic with ultrasound guidance via a transrectal approach (TRUS). Local anaesthetic ultrasound-guided transperineal biopsy (LATP) is gaining popularity in this setting; however, there is uncertainty regarding prostate sampling, infection rates, tolerability, side-effects, and cost-effectiveness. TRANSLATE was a randomised clinical trial that aimed to compare detection of Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 2 or higher prostate cancer, side-effects, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes, after LATP versus TRUS biopsy. In this randomised clinical trial which was done at ten hospitals in the UK, patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if investigated for suspected prostate cancer based on elevated age-specific prostate-specific antigen or abnormal digital rectal examination, and if biopsy-naive having received pre-biopsy MRI on a 1·5 or higher Tesla scanner. Individuals were excluded if they had any previous prostate biopsy, extensive local disease easily detectable by any biopsy (prostate-specific antigen >50 ng/mL or entire gland replaced by tumour on MRI), symptoms of concurrent or recent urinary tract infection, history of immunocompromise, need for enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis, absent rectum, or inability to position in lithotomy. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive LATP or TRUS biopsy, using web-based software with a randomisation sequence using a minimisation algorithm to ensure balanced allocation across biopsy groups for minimisation factors (recruitment site, and location of the MRI lesion). The primary outcome was detection of GGG 2 or higher prostate cancer, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned to treatment who had a biopsy result available). Key secondary endpoints assessing post-biopsy adverse events were infection, bleeding, urinary and sexual function, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05179694) and at ISRCTN (ISRCTN98159689), and is complete. Between Dec 3, 2021, and Sept 26, 2023, 2078 (76%) of 2727 assessed individuals were eligible, and 1126 (41%) of 2727 agreed to participate. 1044 (93%) of the 1126 participants were White British. Participants were allocated to TRUS (n=564) or LATP (n=562) biopsy, and were followed up at time of biopsy, and at 7 days, 35 days, and 4 months post-biopsy. We found GGG 2 or higher prostate cancer in 329 (60%) of 547 participants with biopsy results randomly assigned to LATP compared with 294 (54%) of 540 participants with biopsy results randomly assigned to TRUS biopsy (odds ratio [OR] 1·32 [95% CI 1·03-1·70]; p=0·031). Infection requiring admission to hospital within 35 days post-biopsy occurred in 2 (<1%) of 562 participants in the LATP group compared with 9 (2%) of 564 in the TRUS group. No statistically significant difference was observed in the reporting of overall biopsy-related complications (LATP 454 [81%] of 562 vs TRUS 436 [77%] of 564, OR 1·23 [95% CI 0·93 to 1·65]), urinary retention requiring catheterisation (LATP 35 [6%] of 562 vs TRUS 27 [5%] of 564), urinary symptoms (median International Prostate Symptom Score: LATP 8 [IQR 4-14] vs TRUS 8 [4-13], OR 0·36 [95% CI -0·38 to 1·10]), nor sexual function (median International Index of Erectile Function score: LATP 5 [2-25] vs TRUS 8 [3-24], OR -0·60 [-1·79 to 0·58]) at 4 months after biopsy. Trial participants more commonly reported LATP biopsy to be immediately painful and embarrassing compared with TRUS (LATP 216 [38%] of 562 vs TRUS 153 [27%] of 564; OR 1·84 [95% CI 1·40 to 2·43]). Serious adverse events occurred in 14 (2%) of 562 participants in the LATP group and 25 (4%) of 564 in the TRUS group. Among biopsy-naive individuals being investigated for possible prostate cancer, biopsy with LATP led to greater detection of GGG 2 or higher disease compared with TRUS. These findings will help to inform patients, clinicians, clinical guidelines, and policy makers regarding the important trade-offs between LATP and TRUS prostate biopsy. National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment.

Background: Radiotherapy enhances innate and adaptive anti-tumour immunity. It is unclear whether this effect may be harnessed by combining immunotherapy with radiotherapy fractions used to treat prostate cancer. We investigated tumour immune microenvironment responses of pre-clinical prostate cancer models to radiotherapy. Having defined this landscape, we tested whether radiotherapy-induced tumour growth delay could be enhanced with anti-PD-L1.Methods: Hypofractionated radiotherapy was delivered to TRAMP-C1 and MyC-CaP flank allografts. Tumour growth delay, tumour immune microenvironment flow-cytometry, and immune gene expression were analysed. TRAMP-C1 allografts were then treated with 3 × 5 Gy ± anti-PD-L1.Results: 3 × 5 Gy caused tumour growth delay in TRAMP-C1 and MyC-CaP. Tumour immune microenvironment changes in TRAMP-C1 at 7 days post-radiotherapy included increased tumour-associated macrophages and dendritic cells and upregulation of PD-1/PD-L1, CD8⁺T-cell, dendritic cell, and regulatory T-cell genes. At tumour regrowth post-3 × 5 Gy the tumour immune microenvironment flow-cytometry was similar to control tumours, however CD8⁺, natural killer and dendritic cell gene transcripts were reduced. PD-L1 inhibition plus 3 × 5 Gy in TRAMP-C1 did not enhance tumour growth delay versus monotherapy.Conclusion: 3 × 5 Gy hypofractionated radiotherapy can result in tumour growth delay and immune cell changes in allograft prostate cancer models. Adjuncts beyond immunomodulation may be necessary to improve the radiotherapy-induced anti-tumour response.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the baseline clinico‐pathological features of the men with localized prostate cancer (PCa) included in the ProtecT (Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment) trial who progressed ( n = 198) at a 10‐year median follow‐up were different from those of men with stable disease ( n = 1409). Patients and Methods: We stratified the study participants at baseline according to risk of progression using clinical disease stage, pathological grade and PSA level, using Cox proportional hazard models. Results: The findings showed that 34% of participants ( n = 505) had intermediate‐ or high‐risk PCa, and 66% ( n = 973) had low‐risk PCa. Of 198 participants who progressed, 101 (51%) had baseline International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 1, 59 (30%) Grade Group 2, and 38 (19%) Grade Group 3 PCa, compared with 79%, 17% and 5%, respectively, for 1409 participants without progression ( P < 0.001). In participants with progression, 38% and 62% had baseline low‐ and intermediate‐/high‐risk disease, compared with 69% and 31% of participants with stable disease ( P < 0.001). Treatment received, age (65–69 vs 50–64 years), PSA level, Grade Group, clinical stage, risk group, number of positive cores, tumour length and perineural invasion were associated with time to progression ( P ≤ 0.005). Men progressing after surgery ( n = 19) were more likely to have a higher Grade Group and pathological stage at surgery, larger tumours, lymph node involvement and positive margins. Conclusions: We demonstrate that one‐third of the ProtecT cohort consists of people with intermediate‐/high‐risk disease, and the outcomes data at an average of 10 years' follow‐up are generalizable beyond men with low‐risk PCa.