Literature DB >> 33817652

Gleason Grade Group Concordance between Preoperative Targeted Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Histopathologic Analysis: A Comparison Between In-Bore MRI-guided and MRI-Transrectal US Fusion Prostate Biopsies.

Daniel N Costa1, Qi Cai1, Yin Xi1, Debora Z Recchimuzzi1, Naveen Subramanian1, Aditya Bagrodia1, Neil M Rofsky1, Claus G Roehrborn1, Brad Hornberger1, Rajal B Shah1, Kenneth Goldberg1, Alberto Diaz de Leon1, Ivan Pedrosa1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To determine and compare rates of grade group (GG) discrepancies between different targeted biopsy techniques (in-bore vs fusion) after propensity score weighting using whole-mount radical prostatectomy (RP) histopathologic analysis as the reference standard. Materials and
Methods: This retrospective study evaluated men who underwent targeted (fusion or in-bore) biopsy between April 2017 and January 2019 followed by prostatectomy. The primary endpoint of the study was a change in GG from biopsy to RP at a patient level. For downgrade and upgrade analysis, men with biopsy GG1 (downgrade not possible) and GG5 (upgrade not possible) were excluded, respectively. GG upgrade, downgrade, and concordance rates of each targeting approach were compared using propensity score weighting and logistic regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Significance level was set at .05. Index lesion GG on RP specimen served as the reference standard.
Results: A total of 191 men (90 in the in-bore [mean age, 63 years ± 7 (standard deviation)] and 101 in the fusion biopsy group [mean age, 65 years ± 7]) were eligible and included. Fewer GG upgrades were noted in the in-bore biopsy group (14%; 12 of 85) compared with the fusion plus systematic biopsy group (30%; 28 of 93) (P = .012). The incidence of GG downgrade in the in-bore group (25%; 21 of 84) was higher than in the fusion group (17%; 16 of 93); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .2). Of the 77 men misclassified by both biopsy techniques, the majority (56%, n = 43) had a change in GG of 2 to 3 or 3 to 2.
Conclusion: Superior sampling accuracy with MRI-guided in-bore biopsies offers a lower incidence of GG upgrades compared with MRI-transrectal US fusion biopsies upon RP.Keywords: Biopsy/Needle Aspiration, MR-Imaging, Oncology, Pathology, Prostate Supplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2021. 2021 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy/Needle Aspiration; MR-Imaging; Oncology; Pathology; Prostate

Year:  2021        PMID: 33817652      PMCID: PMC8011452          DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2021200123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer        ISSN: 2638-616X


  29 in total

Review 1.  International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling.

Authors:  Hemamali Samaratunga; Rodolfo Montironi; Lawrence True; Jonathan I Epstein; David F Griffiths; Peter A Humphrey; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas M Wheeler; John R Srigley; Brett Delahunt; Lars Egevad
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2010-09-10       Impact factor: 7.842

2.  Cancer statistics, 2019.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Downgrading of biopsy based Gleason score in prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Kilian M Treurniet; Dominique Trudel; Jenna Sykes; Andrew J Evans; Antonio Finelli; Theodorus H Van der Kwast
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 4.  Prostate cancer family history and eligibility for active surveillance: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Jaya M Telang; Brian R Lane; Michael L Cher; David C Miller; James M Dupree
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  The Heterogeneity of Prostate Cancer: A Practical Approach.

Authors:  Yuri Tolkach; Glen Kristiansen
Journal:  Pathobiology       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael S Cohen; Robert S Hanley; Teodora Kurteva; Robin Ruthazer; Mark L Silverman; Andrea Sorcini; Karim Hamawy; Robert A Roth; Ingolf Tuerk; John A Libertino
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  N M deSouza; S F Riches; N J Vanas; V A Morgan; S A Ashley; C Fisher; G S Payne; C Parker
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 2.350

9.  Prostate cancer risk inflation as a consequence of image-targeted biopsy of the prostate: a computer simulation study.

Authors:  Nicola L Robertson; Yipeng Hu; Hashim U Ahmed; Alex Freeman; Dean Barratt; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer treated with surgery in the United Kingdom: trends and risk factors from the British Association of Urological Surgeons Radical Prostatectomy Registry.

Authors:  Nicholas Bullock; Andrew Simpkin; Sarah Fowler; Murali Varma; Howard Kynaston; Krishna Narahari
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 2.264

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Authors:  Tristan Barrett; Maarten de Rooij; Francesco Giganti; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Anwar R Padhani
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 16.430

Review 2.  The challenge of prostate biopsy guidance in the era of mpMRI detected lesion: ultrasound-guided versus in-bore biopsy.

Authors:  Auke Jager; Joan C Vilanova; Massimo Michi; Hessel Wijkstra; Jorg R Oddens
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  MRI-directed biopsy for primary detection of prostate cancer in a population of 223 men: MRI In-Bore vs MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted techniques.

Authors:  Maurizio Del Monte; Stefano Cipollari; Francesco Del Giudice; Martina Pecoraro; Marco Bicchetti; Emanuele Messina; Ailin Dehghanpour; Antonio Ciardi; Alessandro Sciarra; Carlo Catalano; Valeria Panebianco
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  Optimal biopsy approach for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Simona Ippoliti; Peter Fletcher; Luca Orecchia; Roberto Miano; Christof Kastner; Tristan Barrett
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-08-06       Impact factor: 3.039

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.