Jim C Hu1, Edward Chang1, Shyam Natarajan1, Daniel J Margolis1, Malu Macairan1, Patricia Lieu1, Jiaoti Huang1, Geoffrey Sonn1, Frederick J Dorey1, Leonard S Marks2. 1. Departments of Urology, Radiology, Pathology and Biomedical Engineering, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Departments of Urology, Radiology, Pathology and Biomedical Engineering, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: lmarks@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Established in 1994, the Epstein histological criteria (Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer cores positive and 50% or less of any core) have been widely used to select men for active surveillance. However, with the advent of targeted biopsy, which may be more accurate than conventional biopsy, we reevaluated the likelihood of reclassification upon confirmatory rebiopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 113 men enrolled in active surveillance at our institution who met Epstein criteria and subsequently underwent confirmatory targeted biopsy via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion. Median patient age was 64 years, median prostate specific antigen was 4.2 ng/ml and median prostate volume was 46.8 cc. Targets or regions of interest on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion were graded by suspicion level and biopsied at 3 mm intervals along the longest axis (median 10.5 mm). Also, 12 systematic cores were obtained during confirmatory rebiopsy. Our reporting is consistent with START (Standards of Reporting for MRI-targeted Biopsy Studies) criteria. RESULTS: Confirmatory fusion biopsy resulted in reclassification in 41 men (36%), including 26 (23%) due to Gleason grade 6 or greater and 15 (13%) due to high volume Gleason 6 disease. When stratified by suspicion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion, the likelihood of reclassification was 24% to 29% for target grade 0 to 3, 45% for grade 4 and 100% for grade 5 (p=0.001). Men with grade 4 and 5 vs lower grade targets were greater than 3 times more likely to be reclassified (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.1, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Upon confirmatory rebiopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion men with high suspicion targets on imaging were reclassified 45% to 100% of the time. Criteria for active surveillance should be reevaluated when multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy is used.
PURPOSE: Established in 1994, the Epstein histological criteria (Gleason score 6 or less, 2 or fewer cores positive and 50% or less of any core) have been widely used to select men for active surveillance. However, with the advent of targeted biopsy, which may be more accurate than conventional biopsy, we reevaluated the likelihood of reclassification upon confirmatory rebiopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 113 men enrolled in active surveillance at our institution who met Epstein criteria and subsequently underwent confirmatory targeted biopsy via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion. Median patient age was 64 years, median prostate specific antigen was 4.2 ng/ml and median prostate volume was 46.8 cc. Targets or regions of interest on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion were graded by suspicion level and biopsied at 3 mm intervals along the longest axis (median 10.5 mm). Also, 12 systematic cores were obtained during confirmatory rebiopsy. Our reporting is consistent with START (Standards of Reporting for MRI-targeted Biopsy Studies) criteria. RESULTS: Confirmatory fusion biopsy resulted in reclassification in 41 men (36%), including 26 (23%) due to Gleason grade 6 or greater and 15 (13%) due to high volume Gleason 6 disease. When stratified by suspicion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion, the likelihood of reclassification was 24% to 29% for target grade 0 to 3, 45% for grade 4 and 100% for grade 5 (p=0.001). Men with grade 4 and 5 vs lower grade targets were greater than 3 times more likely to be reclassified (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.1, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Upon confirmatory rebiopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion men with high suspicion targets on imaging were reclassified 45% to 100% of the time. Criteria for active surveillance should be reevaluated when multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy is used.
Authors: Diederik M Somford; Caroline M Hoeks; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Jurgen J Fütterer; J Alfred Witjes; Chris H Bangma; Henk Vergunst; Geert A Smits; Jorg R Oddens; Inge M van Oort; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Ignacio F San Francisco; Lillian Werner; Meredith M Regan; Marc B Garnick; Glenn Bubley; William C DeWolf Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: David Margel; Stanley A Yap; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Laurence Klotz; Masoom Haider; Karen Hersey; Antonio Finelli; Alexandre Zlotta; John Trachtenberg; Neil Fleshner Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mark S Soloway; Cynthia T Soloway; Ahmed Eldefrawy; Kristell Acosta; Bruce Kava; Murugesan Manoharan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marc A Dall'Era; Peter C Albertsen; Christopher Bangma; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland; Laurence H Klotz; Christopher Parker; Mark S Soloway Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Malu MacAiran; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nima Nassiri; Daniel J Margolis; Shyam Natarajan; Devi S Sharma; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Pedro Recabal; Melissa Assel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Daniel Lee; Vincent P Laudone; Karim Touijer; James A Eastham; Hebert A Vargas; Jonathan Coleman; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Mahir Maruf; Thomas P Frye; Akhil Muthigi; Michael Kongnyuy; Subin G Valayil; Peter A Pinto Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Subin G Valayil; Akhil Muthigi; Francesca Mertan; Michael Kongnyuy; Peter A Pinto Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2016-05
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J P Radtke; T H Kuru; D Bonekamp; M T Freitag; M B Wolf; C D Alt; G Hatiboglu; S Boxler; S Pahernik; W Roth; M C Roethke; H P Schlemmer; M Hohenfellner; B A Hadaschik Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 5.554