Literature DB >> 30759371

Downgrading of Grade Group After Radical Prostatectomy: Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Fusion Biopsy and Standard 12-Core Biopsy.

Alp Tuna Beksac1, Stanislaw Sobotka1, Paige Xu1, Akriti Gupta1, Patrick Julien Treacy1, Rachel Weil1, Kanika Mahajan1, Sonya Prasad1, Shivaram Cumarasamy1, Alberto Martini1, Ugo Falagario1, Ardeshir Rastinehad1, Ashutosh K Tewari2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the factors associated with Grade group (GG) downgrading post-radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 536 patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from February 2014 to October 2015. We have analyzed the clinical, radiological, and pathologic factors associated with GG downgrading in final pathology. Downgrading was defined as those patients who downgraded from GG 3, 4, or 5 on biopsy to GG 1 or 2 on final pathology as well as patients who downgraded from GG 2 on biopsy to GG 1 on final pathology. Categorical values were compared with chi-square and Fischer's exact tests. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis were used for analysis of independent variables associated with GG downgrading.
RESULTS: Ninety-three patients underwent fusion biopsy (FB) and 443 underwent the standard 12 core biopsy. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for race (P = .009). Downgrading was observed in 76 patients (14.1%). Rate of downgrading was higher in the FB group (n = 22, 23.7% vs n = 54, 12.2%, P = .008). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, FB (OR:2.39, P = .004) and maximum percentage of core involvement (OR:1.01, P = .013) were associated with downgrading after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. After 1:2 propensity score matching, FB was still associated with an increased rate of downgrading (P = .034). Downgrading had no significant effect on pathologic outcome.
CONCLUSION: FB and maximum percentage of core involvement are the only factors associated with GG downgrading in final pathology. However, downgrading did not influence surgical outcome.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30759371     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.02.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  4 in total

Review 1.  The Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) in the Detection, Evaluation, and Surveillance of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa).

Authors:  Parth Patel; Shu Wang; Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  The impact of surgical downgrading on prostate cancer recurrence: systematic review and analysis of a multiethnic population.

Authors:  Denzel Zhu; William Shyr; Michelle Toker; Ethan Fram; Jinrong Cheng; Evan Z Kovac; Ilir Agalliu; Ahmed Aboumohamed; Kara L Watts
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  The prognostic value of high-grade prostate cancer pattern on MRI-targeted biopsies: predictors for downgrading and importance of concomitant systematic biopsies.

Authors:  Cécile Manceau; Gaëlle Fromont-Hankard; Jean-Baptiste Beauval; Marine Lesourd; Christophe Almeras; Anne-Sophie Bajeot; Jean-Romain Gautier; Michel Soulié; Guillaume Loison; Ambroise Salin; Christophe Tollon; Bernard Malavaud; Mathieu Roumiguié; Guillaume Ploussard
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Combined Systematic and MRI-US Fusion Prostate Biopsy Has the Highest Grading Accuracy When Compared to Final Pathology.

Authors:  Iulia Andras; Emanuel Darius Cata; Andreea Serban; Pierre Kadula; Teodora Telecan; Maximilian Buzoianu; Maria Bungardean; Dan Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2021-05-22       Impact factor: 2.430

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.