Nima Nassiri1, Daniel J Margolis1, Shyam Natarajan1, Devi S Sharma1, Jiaoti Huang1, Frederick J Dorey1, Leonard S Marks2. 1. Department of Urology (NN, SN, DSS, LSM), University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Radiology (DJM), University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Biomedical Engineering (SN), University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Pathology, Duke University School of Medicine (JH), Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Urology (NN, SN, DSS, LSM), University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Radiology (DJM), University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Biomedical Engineering (SN), University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Department of Pathology, Duke University School of Medicine (JH), Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: Lmarks@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to determine the rate of upgrading to Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater using targeted biopsy for diagnosis and monitoring in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study subjects comprised all 259 men, including 196 with Gleason score 3 + 3 and 63 with Gleason score 3 + 4, who were diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy from 2009 to 2015 and underwent subsequent fusion biopsy for as long as 4 years of active surveillance. The primary end point was the discovery of Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater prostate cancer. Followup biopsies included targeting of positive sites, which were tracked in an Artemis™ device. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine upgrading rates, stratified by initial Gleason score and prostate specific antigen density. RESULTS: Based on a Cox proportional hazard model, men with Gleason score 3 + 4 were 4.65 times more likely to have upgrading than men with an initial Gleason score of 3 + 3 at 3 years (p <0.01). By the third surveillance year 63% of men with Gleason score 3 + 4 had been upgraded compared with 18.0% who started with Gleason score 3 + 3 (p <0.01). Of all 33 upgrades 32 (97%) occurred at a magnetic resonance imaging visible or a tracked site of tumor, rather than at a previously negative systematic site. Independent predictors of upgrading were Gleason score 3 + 4, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or greater and a grade 5 lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. The incidence rate ratio of upgrading (Gleason score 3 + 4 vs 3 + 3) was 4.25 per year of patient followup (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: During active surveillance of prostate cancer, targeting of tracked tumor foci by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy allows for heightened detection of Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater cancers. Baseline variables directly related to important upgrading that warrant increased vigilance include Gleason score 3 + 4, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or greater and grade 5 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging.
PURPOSE: We sought to determine the rate of upgrading to Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater using targeted biopsy for diagnosis and monitoring in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study subjects comprised all 259 men, including 196 with Gleason score 3 + 3 and 63 with Gleason score 3 + 4, who were diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy from 2009 to 2015 and underwent subsequent fusion biopsy for as long as 4 years of active surveillance. The primary end point was the discovery of Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater prostate cancer. Followup biopsies included targeting of positive sites, which were tracked in an Artemis™ device. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine upgrading rates, stratified by initial Gleason score and prostate specific antigen density. RESULTS: Based on a Cox proportional hazard model, men with Gleason score 3 + 4 were 4.65 times more likely to have upgrading than men with an initial Gleason score of 3 + 3 at 3 years (p <0.01). By the third surveillance year 63% of men with Gleason score 3 + 4 had been upgraded compared with 18.0% who started with Gleason score 3 + 3 (p <0.01). Of all 33 upgrades 32 (97%) occurred at a magnetic resonance imaging visible or a tracked site of tumor, rather than at a previously negative systematic site. Independent predictors of upgrading were Gleason score 3 + 4, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or greater and a grade 5 lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. The incidence rate ratio of upgrading (Gleason score 3 + 4 vs 3 + 3) was 4.25 per year of patient followup (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: During active surveillance of prostate cancer, targeting of tracked tumor foci by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy allows for heightened detection of Gleason score 4 + 3 or greater cancers. Baseline variables directly related to important upgrading that warrant increased vigilance include Gleason score 3 + 4, prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 or greater and grade 5 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging.
Authors: H Ballentine Carter; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; Bruce J Trock; Robert W Veltri; William G Nelson; Donald S Coffey; Eric A Singer; Jonathan I Epstein Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: F Cornud; Gaby Khoury; Naim Bouazza; Frederic Beuvon; Michael Peyromaure; Thierry Flam; Marc Zerbib; Paul Legmann; Nicolas B Delongchamps Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Jan P Radtke; Constantin Schwab; Maya B Wolf; Martin T Freitag; Celine D Alt; Claudia Kesch; Ionel V Popeneciu; Clemens Huettenbrink; Claudia Gasch; Tilman Klein; David Bonekamp; Stefan Duensing; Wilfried Roth; Svenja Schueler; Christian Stock; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Matthias Roethke; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kareem K Elfatairy; Christopher P Filson; Martin G Sanda; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Rachel L Geller; Sherif G Nour Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ariel A Schulman; Christina Sze; Efrat Tsivian; Rajan T Gupta; Judd W Moul; Thomas J Polascik Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Edward Chang; Tonye A Jones; Shyam Natarajan; Devi Sharma; Demetrios Simopoulos; Daniel J Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Simpa S Salami; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Srinivas Nallandhighal; Tonye A Jones; Scott Brockman; Fuad F Elkhoury; Selena Bazzi; Komal R Plouffe; Javed Siddiqui; Chia-Jen Liu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Todd M Morgan; Shyam Natarajan; Philip S Boonstra; Lauren Sumida; Scott A Tomlins; Aaron M Udager; Anthony E Sisk; Leonard S Marks; Ganesh S Palapattu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Michael A Liss; Lisa F Newcomb; Yingye Zheng; Michael P Garcia; Christopher P Filson; Hilary Boyer; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg; William J Ellis; Martin E Gleave; Frances M Martin; Todd Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Andrew A Wagner; Ian M Thompson; Daniel W Lin Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ivo G Schoots; Daniel F Osses; Frank-Jan H Drost; Jan F M Verbeek; Sebastiaan Remmers; Geert J L H van Leenders; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-02