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
  • [21] Msezane Lambda P, 2007, Can J Urol, V14, P3697
  • [22] Pre-biopsy 3-Tesla MRI and targeted biopsy of the index prostate cancer: correlation with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Patel, Uday
    Dasgupta, Prokar
    Challacombe, Ben
    Cahill, Declan
    Brown, Christian
    Patel, Roshnee
    Kirby, Roger
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 119 (01) : 82 - 90
  • [23] Pierorazio PM, 2013, BJU INT, V111, P753, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11611.x
  • [24] Assessment of the Minimal Targeted Biopsy Core Number per MRI Lesion for Improving Prostate Cancer Grading Prediction
    Ploussard, Guillaume
    Beauval, Jean-Baptiste
    Renard-Penna, Raphaele
    Lesourd, Marine
    Manceau, Cecile
    Almeras, Christophe
    Gautier, Jean-Romain
    Loison, Guillaume
    Portalez, Daniel
    Salin, Ambroise
    Soulie, Michel
    Tollon, Christophe
    Malavaud, Bernard
    Roumiguie, Mathieu
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (01)
  • [25] Decreased accuracy of the prostate cancer EAU risk group classification in the era of imaging-guided diagnostic pathway: proposal for a new classification based on MRI-targeted biopsies and early oncologic outcomes after surgery
    Ploussard, Guillaume
    Manceau, Cecile
    Beauval, Jean-Baptiste
    Lesourd, Marine
    Almeras, Christophe
    Gautier, Jean-Romain
    Loison, Guillaume
    Salin, Ambroise
    Soulie, Michel
    Tollon, Christophe
    Malavaud, Bernard
    Roumiguie, Mathieu
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 38 (10) : 2493 - 2500
  • [26] Predicting Pathological Tumor Size in Prostate Cancer Based on Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Preoperative Findings
    Pooli, Aydin
    Johnson, David C.
    Shirk, Joseph
    Markovic, Daniela
    Sadun, Taylor Y.
    Sisk, Anthony E., Jr.
    Bajgiran, Amirhossein Mohammadian
    Mirak, Sohrab Afshari
    Felker, Ely R.
    Hughes, Alexa K.
    Raman, Steven S.
    Reiter, Robert E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 205 (02) : 444 - 451
  • [27] Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naive Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer
    Porpiglia, Francesco
    Manfredi, Matteo
    Mele, Fabrizio
    Cossu, Marco
    Bollito, Enrico
    Veltri, Andrea
    Cirillo, Stefano
    Regge, Daniele
    Faletti, Riccardo
    Passera, Roberto
    Fiori, Cristian
    De Luca, Stefano
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2017, 72 (02) : 282 - 288
  • [28] Multiparametric-Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy Improves Agreement Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score
    Porpiglia, Francesco
    De Luca, Stefano
    Passera, Roberto
    Manfredi, Matteo
    Mele, Fabrizio
    Bollito, Enrico
    De Pascale, Agostino
    Cossu, Marco
    Aimar, Roberta
    Veltri, Andrea
    [J]. ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 36 (09) : 4833 - 4839
  • [29] Prostate needle biopsies: Multiple variables are predictive of final tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens
    Poulos, CK
    Daggy, JK
    Cheng, L
    [J]. CANCER, 2004, 101 (03) : 527 - 532
  • [30] Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MRI-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy for Index Tumor Detection: Correlation with Radical Prostatectomy Specimen
    Radtke, Jan P.
    Schwab, Constantin
    Wolf, Maya B.
    Freitag, Martin T.
    Alt, Celine D.
    Kesch, Claudia
    Popeneciu, Ionel V.
    Huettenbrink, Clemens
    Gasch, Claudia
    Klein, Tilman
    Bonekamp, David
    Duensing, Stefan
    Roth, Wilfried
    Schueler, Svenja
    Stock, Christian
    Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
    Roethke, Matthias
    Hohenfellner, Markus
    Hadaschik, Boris A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 70 (05) : 846 - 853