Combined Systematic and MRI-US Fusion Prostate Biopsy Has the Highest Grading Accuracy When Compared to Final Pathology

被引:7
作者
Andras, Iulia [1 ,2 ]
Cata, Emanuel Darius [1 ,2 ]
Serban, Andreea [1 ]
Kadula, Pierre [2 ]
Telecan, Teodora [2 ]
Buzoianu, Maximilian [1 ]
Bungardean, Maria [3 ,4 ]
Stanca, Dan Vasile [1 ,2 ]
Coman, Ioan [1 ,2 ]
Crisan, Nicolae [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Iuliu Hatieganu Univ Med & Pharm, Dept Urol, Fac Med, Cluj Napoca 400012, Romania
[2] Municipal Hosp, Dept Urol, Cluj Napoca 400139, Romania
[3] Iuliu Hatieganu Univ Med & Pharm, Dept Pathol, Fac Med, Cluj Napoca 400012, Romania
[4] Emergency Country Hosp, Dept Pathol, Cluj Napoca 400006, Romania
来源
MEDICINA-LITHUANIA | 2021年 / 57卷 / 06期
关键词
Gleason group; MRI; MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy; radical prostatectomy; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; ULTRASOUND FUSION; TARGETED BIOPSY; CANCER; VARIABLES; RISK;
D O I
10.3390/medicina57060519
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background and objectives: Systematic prostate biopsy (SB) has a low Gleason group (GG) accuracy when compared to final pathology. This may negatively impact the inclusion of patients into specific risk groups and treatment choice. The aim of our study was to assess the GG accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion prostate biopsy. Materials and Methods: Of a cohort of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (RP), we selected all patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) via MRI-US fusion biopsy (n = 115). Results: Combined biopsy had the highest rate for GG concordance (61.7% vs. 60.4% for SB vs. 45.3% for MRI-US fusion biopsy) and the lowest for upgrading (20.9% vs. 24.5% for SB vs. 34.9% for MRI-US fusion biopsy), p < 0.0001. No clinical data were predictive for upgrading or downgrading at final pathology. Locally advanced PCa was associated with a high Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score (p = 0.0014) and higher percentages of positive biopsy cores (PBC)/targeted (p = 0.0002) and PBC/total (p = 0.01). Positive surgical margins were correlated with higher percentages of PBC/systematic (p = 0.003) and PBC/total (p = 0.009). Conclusions: Pre-biopsy prostate MRI improves GG concordance between biopsy and RP. Combined biopsy provides the highest grading accuracy when compared to final pathology. Targeted and systematic biopsy data are predictive for adverse pathologic outcomes.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [1] Serum metabolomics can predict the outcome of first systematic transrectal prostate biopsy in patients with PSA < 10 ng/ml
    Andras, Iulia
    Crisan, Nicolae
    Vesa, Stefan
    Rahota, Razvan
    Romanciuc, Florina
    Lazar, Andrei
    Socaciu, Carmen
    Matei, Deliu-Victor
    de Cobelli, Ottavio
    Bocsan, Ioan-Stelian
    Coman, Radu-Tudor
    [J]. FUTURE ONCOLOGY, 2017, 13 (20) : 1793 - 1800
  • [2] The use of targeted MR-guided prostate biopsy reduces the risk of Gleason upgrading on radical prostatectomy
    Arsov, Christian
    Becker, Nikolaus
    Rabenalt, Robert
    Hiester, Andreas
    Quentin, Michael
    Dietzel, Frederic
    Antoch, Gerald
    Gabbert, Helmut E.
    Albers, Peter
    Schimmoeller, Lars
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 141 (11) : 2061 - 2068
  • [3] Downgrading of Grade Group After Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Fusion Biopsy and Standard 12-Core Biopsy
    Beksac, Alp Tuna
    Sobotka, Stanislaw
    Xu, Paige
    Gupta, Akriti
    Treacy, Patrick Julien
    Weil, Rachel
    Mahajan, Kanika
    Prasad, Sonya
    Cumarasamy, Shivaram
    Martini, Alberto
    Falagario, Ugo
    Rastinehad, Ardeshir
    Tewari, Ashutosh K.
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2019, 127 : 80 - 85
  • [4] Direct comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results with final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasonography-fusion biopsy
    Borkowetz, Angelika
    Platzek, Ivan
    Toma, Marieta
    Renner, Theresa
    Herout, Roman
    Baunacke, Martin
    Laniado, Michael
    Baretton, Gustavo
    Froehner, Michael
    Zastrow, Stefan
    Wirth, Manfred
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 118 (02) : 213 - 220
  • [5] Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer treated with surgery in the United Kingdom: trends and risk factors from the British Association of Urological Surgeons Radical Prostatectomy Registry
    Bullock, Nicholas
    Simpkin, Andrew
    Fowler, Sarah
    Varma, Murali
    Kynaston, Howard
    Narahari, Krishna
    [J]. BMC UROLOGY, 2019, 19 (01)
  • [6] Risk of Upgrading from Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Pathology-Does Saturation Biopsy of Index Lesion during Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Help?
    Calio, Brian P.
    Sidana, Abhinav
    Sugano, Dordaneh
    Gaur, Sonia
    Maruf, Mahir
    Jain, Amit L.
    Merino, Maria J.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    Turkbey, Baris
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 199 (04) : 976 - 981
  • [7] Cata Emanuel, 2020, Transl Androl Urol, V9, P2510, DOI 10.21037/tau-20-1001
  • [8] Comparison of the Upgrading Rates of International Society of Urological Pathology Grades and Tumor Laterality in Patients Undergoing Standard 12-Core Prostate Biopsy versus Fusion Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer
    Demirtas, Abdullah
    Sonmez, Gokhan
    Tombul, Sevket Tolga
    Demirtas, Turev
    Akgun, Hulya
    [J]. UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2019, 103 (03) : 256 - 261
  • [9] A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy
    Diamand, R.
    Oderda, M.
    Obeid, W. Al Hajj
    Albisinni, S.
    Van Velthoven, R.
    Fasolis, G.
    Simone, G.
    Ferriero, M.
    Roche, J-B.
    Piechaud, T.
    Pastore, A.
    Carbone, A.
    Fiard, G.
    Descotes, J-L.
    Marra, G.
    Gontero, P.
    Altobelli, E.
    Papalia, R.
    Kumar, P.
    Eldred-Evans, D.
    Giacobbe, A.
    Muto, G.
    Lacetera, V.
    Beatrici, V.
    Roumeguere, T.
    Peltier, A.
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 37 (10) : 2109 - 2117
  • [10] A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    Zelefsky, Michael J.
    Sjoberg, Daniel D.
    Nelson, Joel B.
    Egevad, Lars
    Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Parwani, Anil V.
    Reuter, Victor E.
    Fine, Samson W.
    Eastham, James A.
    Wiklund, Peter
    Han, Misop
    Reddy, Chandana A.
    Ciezki, Jay P.
    Nyberg, Tommy
    Klein, Eric A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (03) : 428 - 435