Iulia Andras1,2, Emanuel Darius Cata1,2, Andreea Serban1, Pierre Kadula2, Teodora Telecan2, Maximilian Buzoianu1, Maria Bungardean3,4, Dan Vasile Stanca1,2, Ioan Coman1,2, Nicolae Crisan1,2. 1. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 2. Department of Urology, Municipal Hospital, 400139 Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 3. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 4. Department of Pathology, Emergency Country Hospital, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Systematic prostate biopsy (SB) has a low Gleason group (GG) accuracy when compared to final pathology. This may negatively impact the inclusion of patients into specific risk groups and treatment choice. The aim of our study was to assess the GG accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion prostate biopsy. Materials and Methods: Of a cohort of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (RP), we selected all patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) via MRI-US fusion biopsy (n = 115). Results: Combined biopsy had the highest rate for GG concordance (61.7% vs. 60.4% for SB vs. 45.3% for MRI-US fusion biopsy) and the lowest for upgrading (20.9% vs. 24.5% for SB vs. 34.9% for MRI-US fusion biopsy), p < 0.0001. No clinical data were predictive for upgrading or downgrading at final pathology. Locally advanced PCa was associated with a high Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score (p = 0.0014) and higher percentages of positive biopsy cores (PBC)/targeted (p = 0.0002) and PBC/total (p = 0.01). Positive surgical margins were correlated with higher percentages of PBC/systematic (p = 0.003) and PBC/total (p = 0.009). Conclusions: Pre-biopsy prostate MRI improves GG concordance between biopsy and RP. Combined biopsy provides the highest grading accuracy when compared to final pathology. Targeted and systematic biopsy data are predictive for adverse pathologic outcomes.
Background and objectives: Systematic prostate biopsy (SB) has a low Gleason group (GG) accuracy when compared to final pathology. This may negatively impact the inclusion of patients into specific risk groups and treatment choice. The aim of our study was to assess the GG accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion prostate biopsy. Materials and Methods: Of a cohort of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (RP), we selected all patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) via MRI-US fusion biopsy (n = 115). Results: Combined biopsy had the highest rate for GG concordance (61.7% vs. 60.4% for SB vs. 45.3% for MRI-US fusion biopsy) and the lowest for upgrading (20.9% vs. 24.5% for SB vs. 34.9% for MRI-US fusion biopsy), p < 0.0001. No clinical data were predictive for upgrading or downgrading at final pathology. Locally advanced PCa was associated with a high Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score (p = 0.0014) and higher percentages of positive biopsy cores (PBC)/targeted (p = 0.0002) and PBC/total (p = 0.01). Positive surgical margins were correlated with higher percentages of PBC/systematic (p = 0.003) and PBC/total (p = 0.009). Conclusions: Pre-biopsy prostate MRI improves GG concordance between biopsy and RP. Combined biopsy provides the highest grading accuracy when compared to final pathology. Targeted and systematic biopsy data are predictive for adverse pathologic outcomes.
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Caroline Hoeks; Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Tom Scheenen; Jurgen Fütterer; Stefan Bouwense; Inge van Oort; Fritz Schröder; Henkjan Huisman; Jelle Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-08-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: R Diamand; M Oderda; W Al Hajj Obeid; S Albisinni; R Van Velthoven; G Fasolis; G Simone; M Ferriero; J-B Roche; T Piechaud; A Pastore; A Carbone; G Fiard; J-L Descotes; G Marra; P Gontero; E Altobelli; R Papalia; P Kumar; D Eldred-Evans; A Giacobbe; G Muto; V Lacetera; V Beatrici; T Roumeguere; A Peltier Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Aydin Pooli; David C Johnson; Joseph Shirk; Daniela Markovic; Taylor Y Sadun; Anthony E Sisk; Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Ely R Felker; Alexa K Hughes; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Brian P Calio; Abhinav Sidana; Dordaneh Sugano; Sonia Gaur; Mahir Maruf; Amit L Jain; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-20 Impact factor: 7.450
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: 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
Authors: Ashwin Sachdeva; Rajan Veeratterapillay; Antonia Voysey; Katherine Kelly; Mark I Johnson; Jonathan Aning; Naeem A Soomro Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 2.264