Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common noncutaneous malignancy in men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality in men in the United States. Current practice requires histopathological confirmation of cancer achieved through biopsy for diagnosis. The transrectal approach for prostate biopsy has been the standard for several decades. However, the risks and limitations of transrectal biopsies have led to a recent resurgence of transperineal prostatic biopsies. Recent studies have demonstrated the transperineal approach for prostate biopsies to be effective, associated with minimal complications and superior in several aspects to traditional transrectal biopsies. While sextant and extended sextant templates are widely accepted templates for transrectal biopsy, there are a diverse set of transperineal biopsy templates available for use, without consensus on the optimal sampling strategy. We aim to critically appraise the salient features of established transperineal biopsy templates.

Context: Focal therapy (FT) has been gaining popularity as a treatment option for localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa) due to the associated lower morbidity compared to whole-gland treatment. However, there is an increased risk of local cancer recurrence requiring subsequent treatment in a small proportion of patients. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to better describe and analyze patient postoperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes for those who underwent salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) to manage their primary FT failure. Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was completed using three databases (PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) from October to December 2021 to identify data on outcomes in patients who received sRP for cancer recurrence after prior focal treatment. Evidence synthesis: 12 articles (482 patients) were included. Median time to sRP was 24 months. Median follow-up time was 27 months. A meta-analysis revealed a postoperative complication rate of 15% (95% CI: 0.09, 0.24), with 4.6% meeting criteria for a major complication Clavien (CG) grade ≥3. Severe GU toxicity was seen in 3.6% of the patients, and no patients had severe GI toxicity. Positive surgical margins (PSM) were found in 27% (95% CI: 0.19, 0.37). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) after sRP occurred in 23% (95% CI: 0.17, 0.30), indicating a BCR-free probability of 77% at 2 years. Continence (pad-free) and potency (ability to have penetrative sex) were maintained in 67% (95% CI: 0.53, 0.78) and 37% (95% CI: 0.18, 0.62) at 12 months, respectively. Conclusion: Our evidence shows acceptable complication rates and oncologic outcomes; however, with suboptimal functional outcomes for patients undergoing sRP for recurrent PCa after prior FT. Inferior outcomes were observed for salvage treatment compared to primary radical prostatectomy (pRP). More high-quality studies are needed to better characterize outcomes after this sequence of PCa treatments. Patient summary: We looked at treatment outcomes and toxicity for men treated with sRP for prior FT failure. We conclude that these patients will have significant detriment to genitourinary function, with outcomes being worse than those for pRP patients.

No abstract