Intraoperative Frozen Section via Neurosafe During Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in the Era of Preoperative Risk Stratifications and Primary Staging With mpMRI and PSMA-PET CT: Is There a Perfect Candidate?

To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).

Rationale The development of consensus guidelines for interpretation of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is needed to provide more consistent reports in clinical practice. The standardization of PSMA-PET interpretation may also contribute to increasing the data reproducibility within clinical trials. Finally, guidelines in PSMA-PET interpretation are needed to communicate the exact location of findings to referring physicians, to support clinician therapeutic management decisions. Methods A panel of worldwide experts in PSMA-PET was established. Panelists were selected based on their expertise and publication record in the diagnosis or treatment of PCa, in their involvement in clinical guidelines and according to their expertise in the clinical application of radiolabeled PSMA inhibitors. Panelists were actively involved in all stages of a modified, nonanonymous, Delphi consensus process. Results According to the findings obtained by modified Delphi consensus process, panelist recommendations were implemented in a structured report for PSMA-PET. Conclusions The E-PSMA standardized reporting guidelines, a document supported by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), provide consensus statements among a panel of experts in PSMA-PET imaging, to develop a structured report for PSMA-PET in prostate cancer and to harmonize diagnostic interpretation criteria. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00259-021-05245-y.

Widespread use of prostate-specific antigen screening has resulted in younger and healthier men being diagnosed with prostate cancer. Their demands and expectations of surgical intervention are much higher and cannot be adequately addressed with the classic trifecta outcome measures. A new and more comprehensive method for reporting outcomes after radical prostatectomy, the pentafecta, is proposed. From January 2008 through September 2009, details of 1111 consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon were retrospectively analyzed. Of 626 potent men, 332 who underwent bilateral nerve sparing and who had 1 yr of follow-up were included in the study group. In addition to the traditional trifecta outcomes, two perioperative variables were included in the pentafecta: no postoperative complications and negative surgical margins. Patients who attained the trifecta and concurrently the two additional outcomes were considered as having achieved the pentafecta. A logistic regression model was created to evaluate independent factors for achieving the pentafecta. Continence, potency, biochemical recurrence-free survival, and trifecta rates at 12 mo were 96.4%, 89.8%, 96.4%, and 83.1%, respectively. With regard to the perioperative outcomes, 93.4% had no postoperative complication and 90.7% had negative surgical margins. The pentafecta rate at 12 mo was 70.8%. On multivariable analysis, patient age (p=0.001) was confirmed as the only factor independently associated with the pentafecta. A more comprehensive approach for reporting prostate surgery outcomes, the pentafecta, is being proposed. We believe that pentafecta outcomes more accurately represent patients' expectations after minimally invasive surgery for prostate cancer. This approach may be beneficial and may be used when counseling patients with clinically localized disease. Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.