Nima Nassiri1, Edward Chang1, Patricia Lieu1, Alan M Priester2, Daniel J A Margolis3, Jiaoti Huang4, Robert E Reiter1, Frederick J Dorey1, Leonard S Marks1, Shyam Natarajan5. 1. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Bioengineering, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell at New York Presbyterian, New York, New York. 4. Department of Pathology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California; Department of Bioengineering, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: shyam@ucla.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed focal therapy eligibility in men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy with correlation to whole mount histology after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were selected from among the 454 men in whom targeted biopsy proven prostate cancer was derived from regions of interest on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging from 2010 to 2016. Focal therapy eligibility was limited to a maximum Gleason score of 4 + 3 in regions of interest with or without other foci of low risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 and less than 4 mm). Men who did not meet NCCN® intermediate risk criteria were classified as ineligible for focal therapy. Of the 454 men 64 underwent radical prostatectomy and biopsy findings were compared to final pathology findings. RESULTS: Of the 454 men with a biopsy proven region of interest 175 (38.5%) were eligible for focal therapy. Fusion biopsy, which combined targeted and template biopsy, had 80.0% sensitivity (12 of 15 cases), 73.5% specificity (36 of 49) and 75.0% accuracy (48 of 64) for focal therapy eligibility. Targeted cores alone yielded 73.3% sensitivity (11 of 15 cases), 47.9% specificity (23 of 48) and 54.7% accuracy (35 of 64). Gleason score and extension across the midline differed in 4 and 9, respectively, of the 13 cases that showed discordant biopsy and whole mount histology. CONCLUSIONS: Using intermediate risk eligibility criteria more than a third of men with a targeted biopsy proven lesion identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging would have been eligible for focal therapy. Eligibility determined by fusion biopsy was concordant with whole mount histology in 75% of cases. Improved selection criteria are needed to reliably determine focal therapy eligibility.
PURPOSE: We assessed focal therapy eligibility in men who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy with correlation to whole mount histology after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were selected from among the 454 men in whom targeted biopsy proven prostate cancer was derived from regions of interest on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging from 2010 to 2016. Focal therapy eligibility was limited to a maximum Gleason score of 4 + 3 in regions of interest with or without other foci of low risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 and less than 4 mm). Men who did not meet NCCN® intermediate risk criteria were classified as ineligible for focal therapy. Of the 454 men 64 underwent radical prostatectomy and biopsy findings were compared to final pathology findings. RESULTS: Of the 454 men with a biopsy proven region of interest 175 (38.5%) were eligible for focal therapy. Fusion biopsy, which combined targeted and template biopsy, had 80.0% sensitivity (12 of 15 cases), 73.5% specificity (36 of 49) and 75.0% accuracy (48 of 64) for focal therapy eligibility. Targeted cores alone yielded 73.3% sensitivity (11 of 15 cases), 47.9% specificity (23 of 48) and 54.7% accuracy (35 of 64). Gleason score and extension across the midline differed in 4 and 9, respectively, of the 13 cases that showed discordant biopsy and whole mount histology. CONCLUSIONS: Using intermediate risk eligibility criteria more than a third of men with a targeted biopsy proven lesion identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging would have been eligible for focal therapy. Eligibility determined by fusion biopsy was concordant with whole mount histology in 75% of cases. Improved selection criteria are needed to reliably determine focal therapy eligibility.
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: Scott E Eggener; Peter T Scardino; Patrick C Walsh; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Bruce J Trock; Zhaoyong Feng; David P Wood; James A Eastham; Ofer Yossepowitch; Danny M Rabah; Michael W Kattan; Changhong Yu; Eric A Klein; Andrew J Stephenson Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ganesh S Palapattu; Simpa S Salami; Andi K Cani; Daniel H Hovelson; Lorena Lazo de la Vega; Kelly R Vandenberg; Jarred V Bratley; Chia-Jen Liu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Jeffery S Montgomery; Todd M Morgan; Shyam Natarajan; Jiaoti Huang; Scott A Tomlins; Leonard S Marks Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Kae Jack Tay; Thomas J Polascik; Ahmed Elshafei; Michael L Cher; Robert W Given; Vladimir Mouraviev; Ashley E Ross; J Stephen Jones Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 2.942
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: Wennuan Liu; Sari Laitinen; Sofia Khan; Mauno Vihinen; Jeanne Kowalski; Guoqiang Yu; Li Chen; Charles M Ewing; Mario A Eisenberger; Michael A Carducci; William G Nelson; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Jun Luo; Yue Wang; Jianfeng Xu; William B Isaacs; Tapio Visakorpi; G Steven Bova Journal: Nat Med Date: 2009-04-12 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: John R Heard; Aurash Naser-Tavakolian; Michael Nazmifar; Michael Ahdoot Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Dominik Deniffel; Nathan Perlis; Sangeet Ghai; Stephanie Girgis; Gerard M Healy; Neil Fleshner; Robert Hamilton; Girish Kulkarni; Ants Toi; Theodorus van der Kwast; Alexandre Zlotta; Antonio Finelli; Masoom A Haider Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Steve R Zhou; Alan M Priester; Rajiv Jayadevan; David C Johnson; Jason J Yang; Jorge Ballon; Shyam Natarajan; Leonard S Marks Journal: BJU Int Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 5.969