Zachary A Glaser1, Jennifer B Gordetsky2, Sejong Bae3, Jeffrey W Nix4, Kristin K Porter5, Soroush Rais-Bahrami6. 1. Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. Electronic address: zglaser@uabmc.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 3. Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 4. Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 6. Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) Preprostatectomy nomogram is a widely used resource that integrates clinical factors to predict the likelihood of adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy. Adoption of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy (TB) permits optimized detection of clinically-significant cancer over systematic biopsy (SB) alone. We aim to evaluate the prognostic utility of the MSKCC Preprostatectomy nomogram with TB pathology results. METHODS: Men who underwent SB and magnetic resonance imaging TB who later underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution were included. Patient information was entered into the MSKCC Preprostatectomy nomogram using 5 biopsy reporting schemes with TB reported by both individual core (IC) and aggregate group (AG) methods. The likelihood of extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement as predicted by the nomogram for each biopsy reporting schema were compared to radical prostatectomy pathology. RESULTS: We identified 63 men from January 2014 to November 2017. On receiver operating characteristic analysis, IC-TB, AG-TB, SB plus IC-TB, and SB plus AG-TB exhibited similar, if not improved, area under the curve compared to SB alone in predicting extraprostatic extension (0.671, 0.674, 0.658, and 0.6613 vs. 0.6085). This was similarly observed for seminal vesicle invasion prediction using SB plus IC-TB compared to SB alone (0.727 vs. 0.733). For lymph node involvement, superior but nonsignificant area under the curve was observed for AG-TB (0.647) compared to IC-TB (0.571) and SB alone (0.524) CONCLUSIONS: Using TB pathology results either alone or combined with SB pathology results as input to the MSKCC Preprostatectomy nomogram appears comparable for prognosticating adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy compared to SB alone, but robust validation is warranted prior to adoption into clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) Preprostatectomy nomogram is a widely used resource that integrates clinical factors to predict the likelihood of adverse pathology at radical prostatectomy. Adoption of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy (TB) permits optimized detection of clinically-significant cancer over systematic biopsy (SB) alone. We aim to evaluate the prognostic utility of the MSKCC Preprostatectomy nomogram with TB pathology results. METHODS: Men who underwent SB and magnetic resonance imaging TB who later underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution were included. Patient information was entered into the MSKCC Preprostatectomy nomogram using 5 biopsy reporting schemes with TB reported by both individual core (IC) and aggregate group (AG) methods. The likelihood of extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and lymph node involvement as predicted by the nomogram for each biopsy reporting schema were compared to radical prostatectomy pathology. RESULTS: We identified 63 men from January 2014 to November 2017. On receiver operating characteristic analysis, IC-TB, AG-TB, SB plus IC-TB, and SB plus AG-TB exhibited similar, if not improved, area under the curve compared to SB alone in predicting extraprostatic extension (0.671, 0.674, 0.658, and 0.6613 vs. 0.6085). This was similarly observed for seminal vesicle invasion prediction using SB plus IC-TB compared to SB alone (0.727 vs. 0.733). For lymph node involvement, superior but nonsignificant area under the curve was observed for AG-TB (0.647) compared to IC-TB (0.571) and SB alone (0.524) CONCLUSIONS: Using TB pathology results either alone or combined with SB pathology results as input to the MSKCC Preprostatectomy nomogram appears comparable for prognosticating adverse pathology on radical prostatectomy compared to SB alone, but robust validation is warranted prior to adoption into clinical practice.
Authors: Kareem N Rayn; Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Joseph A Baiocco; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vikram K Sabarwal; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Marc A Bjurlin; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Saradwata Sarkar; Herbert Lepor; William C Huang; Richard Huang; Rajesh Venkataraman; Samir S Taneja Journal: Urology Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Vidhush K Yarlagadda; Win Shun Lai; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Kristin K Porter; Jeffrey W Nix; John V Thomas; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2018 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.630
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: Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Changhong Yu; Fernando J Bianco; Angel M Cronin; James A Eastham; Eric A Klein; Alwyn M Reuther; Jose Edson Pontes; Peter T Scardino Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sebnem Ece Eksi; Alex Chitsazan; Zeynep Sayar; George V Thomas; Andrew J Fields; Ryan P Kopp; Paul T Spellman; Andrew C Adey Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Samuel J Galgano; Andrew M McDonald; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Kristin K Porter; Gagandeep Choudhary; Constantine Burgan; Pradeep Bhambhvani; Jeffrey W Nix; Desiree E Morgan; Yufeng Li; John V Thomas; Jonathan McConathy Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 6.582