Brunno C F Sanches1,2, Ana Luiza Lalli1, Wilmar Azal Neto1, Athanase Billis1, Leonardo Oliveira Reis3,4. 1. University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil. 2. Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil. 3. University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil. reisleo.l@gmail.com. 4. Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil. reisleo.l@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the role of prostate biopsy core length on prediction of index tumor clinical significance and localization on radical prostatectomy (RP) and time to recurrence, hypothesizing 10-, 10-12-, or > 12-mm minimum core as potential biopsy quality control. METHODS: Assessed 2424 prostate biopsy cores and corresponding RP of 202 patients submitted to the first set of 12 cores prostate biopsy between 2010 and 2015. Analyzed biopsy core length, age, prostate volume (PV), free and total PSA ratio, PSA density, RP index tumor clinical significance, extension, localization, surgical margins, and cancer control. Prostate biopsy confronted to surgical specimens defined Gleason grade-grouping system (1-5) agreement. RESULTS: Median age was 63.7 years, PSA 10.1 ng/dl, PSA density 28%, and mean follow-up 5 years. Recurrence was identified in 64 (31.7%) patients and predicted by PSA > 10 at time of diagnosis (p = 0.008), seminal vesicle invasion (p = 0.0019), core tumor percentage (p = 0.033), and tumor localization predominantly in the prostate base (p = 0017). The mean core length was longer in index tumor positive cores (p = 0.043) and in tumors classified as clinically insignificant (p = 0.011), without impact on tumor localization (basal vs apical p = 0.592; left vs. right p = 0.320). Biopsy core length categories (≤ 10, 10-12 and > 12 mm) did not significantly impact Gleason grade-grouping agreement or time to recurrence (p > 0.05). Core length was not significantly different in all Gleason grade-groupings 1-5 (p = 0.312). CONCLUSION: Prostate biopsy core length impacts tumor characterization; however, 10 mm minimum core length and even 10-12- and > 12-mm categories failed as a biopsy quality control in our data.
PURPOSE: To explore the role of prostate biopsy core length on prediction of index tumor clinical significance and localization on radical prostatectomy (RP) and time to recurrence, hypothesizing 10-, 10-12-, or > 12-mm minimum core as potential biopsy quality control. METHODS: Assessed 2424 prostate biopsy cores and corresponding RP of 202 patients submitted to the first set of 12 cores prostate biopsy between 2010 and 2015. Analyzed biopsy core length, age, prostate volume (PV), free and total PSA ratio, PSA density, RP index tumor clinical significance, extension, localization, surgical margins, and cancer control. Prostate biopsy confronted to surgical specimens defined Gleason grade-grouping system (1-5) agreement. RESULTS: Median age was 63.7 years, PSA 10.1 ng/dl, PSA density 28%, and mean follow-up 5 years. Recurrence was identified in 64 (31.7%) patients and predicted by PSA > 10 at time of diagnosis (p = 0.008), seminal vesicle invasion (p = 0.0019), core tumor percentage (p = 0.033), and tumor localization predominantly in the prostate base (p = 0017). The mean core length was longer in index tumor positive cores (p = 0.043) and in tumors classified as clinically insignificant (p = 0.011), without impact on tumor localization (basal vs apical p = 0.592; left vs. right p = 0.320). Biopsy core length categories (≤ 10, 10-12 and > 12 mm) did not significantly impact Gleason grade-grouping agreement or time to recurrence (p > 0.05). Core length was not significantly different in all Gleason grade-groupings 1-5 (p = 0.312). CONCLUSION: Prostate biopsy core length impacts tumor characterization; however, 10 mm minimum core length and even 10-12- and > 12-mm categories failed as a biopsy quality control in our data.
Authors: Mohit Gupta; John McCauley; Amy Farkas; Ahmet Gudeloglu; Molly M Neuberger; Yen-Yi Ho; Lawrence Yeung; Johannes Vieweg; Philipp Dahm Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: T Van der Kwast; L Bubendorf; C Mazerolles; M R Raspollini; G J Van Leenders; C-G Pihl; P Kujala Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Alessandro Bertaccini; Andrea Fandella; Tommaso Prayer-Galetti; Vincenzo Scattoni; Andrea B Galosi; Vincenzo Ficarra; Carlo Trombetta; Massimo Gion; Giuseppe Martorana Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Athanase Billis; Leandro L L Freitas; Larissa B E Costa; Camila M Angelis; Kelson R Carvalho; Luis A Magna; Ubirajara Ferreira Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2017 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.541
Authors: Glen Denmer R Santok; Ali Abdel Raheem; Lawrence Hc Kim; Kidon Chang; Trenton Gh Lum; Byung Ha Chung; Young Deuk Choi; Koon Ho Rha Journal: Investig Clin Urol Date: 2017-02-15
Authors: Michael A Cerqueira; Karen L Ferrari; Amilcar C de Mattos; Carlos R Monti; Leonardo Oliveira Reis Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.226