Jonathan B Bloom1, Graham R Hale1, Samuel A Gold1, Kareem N Rayn1, Clayton Smith2, Sherif Mehralivand1,2,3, Marcin Czarniecki2, Vladimir Valera1, Bradford J Wood4, Maria J Merino5, Peter L Choyke2, Howard L Parnes6, Baris Turkbey2, Peter A Pinto1,4. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 4. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Active surveillance has gained acceptance as an alternative to definitive therapy in many men with prostate cancer. Confirmatory biopsies to assess the appropriateness of active surveillance are routinely performed and negative biopsies are regarded as a favorable prognostic indicator. We sought to determine the prognostic implications of negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy consisting of extended sextant, systematic biopsy plus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients referred with Gleason Grade Group 1 or 2 prostate cancer based on systematic biopsy performed elsewhere underwent confirmatory fusion biopsy. Patients who continued on active surveillance after a positive or a negative fusion biopsy were followed. The baseline characteristics of the biopsy negative and positive cases were compared. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the prognostic significance of a negative fusion biopsy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate Grade Group progression with time. RESULTS: Of the 542 patients referred with Grade Group 1 (466) or Grade Group 2 (76) cancer 111 (20.5%) had a negative fusion biopsy. A total of 60 vs 122 patients with a negative vs a positive fusion biopsy were followed on active surveillance with a median time to Grade Group progression of 74.3 and 44.6 months, respectively (p <0.01). Negative fusion biopsy was associated with a reduced risk of Grade Group progression (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.77, p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A negative confirmatory fusion biopsy confers a favorable prognosis for Grade Group progression. These results can be used when counseling patients about the risk of progression and for planning future followup and biopsies in patients on active surveillance.
PURPOSE: Active surveillance has gained acceptance as an alternative to definitive therapy in many men with prostate cancer. Confirmatory biopsies to assess the appropriateness of active surveillance are routinely performed and negative biopsies are regarded as a favorable prognostic indicator. We sought to determine the prognostic implications of negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy consisting of extended sextant, systematic biopsy plus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients referred with Gleason Grade Group 1 or 2 prostate cancer based on systematic biopsy performed elsewhere underwent confirmatory fusion biopsy. Patients who continued on active surveillance after a positive or a negative fusion biopsy were followed. The baseline characteristics of the biopsy negative and positive cases were compared. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the prognostic significance of a negative fusion biopsy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate Grade Group progression with time. RESULTS: Of the 542 patients referred with Grade Group 1 (466) or Grade Group 2 (76) cancer 111 (20.5%) had a negative fusion biopsy. A total of 60 vs 122 patients with a negative vs a positive fusion biopsy were followed on active surveillance with a median time to Grade Group progression of 74.3 and 44.6 months, respectively (p <0.01). Negative fusion biopsy was associated with a reduced risk of Grade Group progression (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.77, p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A negative confirmatory fusion biopsy confers a favorable prognosis for Grade Group progression. These results can be used when counseling patients about the risk of progression and for planning future followup and biopsies in patients on active surveillance.
Authors: Vishnu Ganesan; Charles Dai; Yaw A Nyame; Daniel J Greene; Nima Almassi; Daniel Hettel; Joseph Zabell; Hans Arora; Samuel Haywood; Alice Crane; Chad Reichard; Anna Zampini; Ahmed Elshafei; Robert J Stein; Khaled Fareed; J Stephen Jones; Michael Gong; Andrew J Stephenson; Eric A Klein; Ryan K Berglund Journal: Urology Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Annerleim Walton Diaz; Nabeel Ahmad Shakir; Arvin K George; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Jason T Rothwax; Lambros Stamatakis; Cheng William Hong; Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Daniel Su; Joanna Shih; Hui Han; Howard L Parnes; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Chinonyerem Okoro; Arvin K George; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Nabeel A Shakir; Jason T Rothwax; Dima Raskolnikov; Lambros Stamatakis; Daniel Su; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Lambros Stamatakis; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jeffrey W Nix; Jennifer Logan; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Brian Shuch; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Richard M Simon; Peter A Pinto Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Jonathan B Bloom; Clayton P Smith; Kareem N Rayn; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: K Clint Cary; Janet E Cowan; Melissa Sanford; Katsuto Shinohara; Nannette Perez; June M Chan; Maxwell V Meng; Peter R Carroll Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James T Kearns; Anna V Faino; Lisa F Newcomb; James D Brooks; Peter R Carroll; Atreya Dash; William J Ellis; Michael Fabrizio; Martin E Gleave; Todd M Morgan; Peter S Nelson; Ian M Thompson; Andrew A Wagner; Yingye Zheng; Daniel W Lin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jean-Michel Correas; Ethan J Halpern; Richard G Barr; Sangeet Ghai; Jochen Walz; Sylvain Bodard; Charles Dariane; Jean de la Rosette Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Luke P O'Connor; Alex Z Wang; Nitin K Yerram; Amir H Lebastchi; Michael Ahdoot; Sandeep Gurram; Johnathan Zeng; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie Harmon; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urology Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Luke P O'Connor; Alex Z Wang; Nitin K Yerram; Lori Long; Michael Ahdoot; Amir H Lebastchi; Sandeep Gurram; Johnathan Zeng; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2020-10-21
Authors: Mattia Luca Piccinelli; Stefano Luzzago; Giulia Marvaso; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Noriyoshi Miura; Victor M Schuettfort; Keiichiro Mori; Alberto Colombo; Matteo Ferro; Francesco A Mistretta; Nicola Fusco; Giuseppe Petralia; Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa; Shahrokh F Shariat; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Ottavio de Cobelli; Gennaro Musi Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-03-26 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Rajiv Jayadevan; Ely R Felker; Lorna Kwan; Danielle E Barsa; Haoyue Zhang; Anthony E Sisk; Merdie Delfin; Leonard S Marks Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-09-04