Targeted biopsy of the prostate: does this result in improvement in detection of high-grade cancer or the occurrence of the Will Rogers phenomenon?
#PCSM
#ProstateCancer
Will Rogers phenomenon
biopsy
epidemiology
histology
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
14
5
2019
medline:
14
5
2019
entrez:
14
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate whether patients with Gleason 3 + 4 cancer on transrectal biopsy are upgraded after undergoing transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy and whether this has implications for current clinical practice. In this retrospective analysis we examined 107 consecutive patients presenting at a single tertiary referral centre (July 2012 to July 2016) with prostate cancer of Gleason score 3 + 4 on transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided systematic non-targeted biopsy who then underwent a multiparametric MRI followed by MRI-targeted transperineal prostate biopsy for accurate risk stratification and localization. The patients' mean (sd) age was 67.0 (8.0) years, and they had a median (interquartile range) PSA concentration of 6.2 (4.7-9.6) ng/mL. Of the 107 patients, 84 (78.5%) had Gleason 3 + 4 on both transrectal systematic biopsy and transperineal MRI-targeted biopsy. Nineteen patients (17.8%) were upgraded to Gleason 4 + 3, three patients (3.0%) to Gleason 4 + 4 and one patient (1.0%) to Gleason 4 + 5. These differences were significant (P = 0.0006). Likewise, 23/107 patients (22%) had higher-risk disease based on their targeted biopsies. The use of targeted biopsy in men with impalpable cancer, ultimately upgraded one in five patients from favourable-intermediate- to unfavourable-intermediate-risk disease or worse. This has significant clinical implications for men considering active surveillance or radical treatment. Our risk calculators must now be validated using these data from targeted biopsy as the technique becomes widely adopted.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
643-648Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/M009092/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors BJU International © 2019 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Kessler B, Albertsen P. The natural history of prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 2003; 30: 219-26
Mahmood U, Levy LB, Nguyen PL, Lee AK, Kuban DA, Hoffman KE. Current clinical presentation and treatment of localized prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol 2014; 192: 1650-6
Ahmed HU, Bosaily AS, Brown LC et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815-22
Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The Will Rogers phenomenon. Stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 1604
Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 1248-53
Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localization, and characterization of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 7477
Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37: 48-58
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-57
Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: W612-8
Bass EJ, Donaldson IA, Freeman A et al. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2017; 20: 311-7
Carroll PH, Mohler JL. NCCN guidelines updates: prostate cancer and prostate cancer early detection. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018; 16: 620-3
Cookson MS. Prostate cancer: screening and early detection. Cancer Control 2008; 8: 133-40
Hankey BF, Feuer EJ, Clegg LX et al. Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer-part1: evidence of the effects of screening in recent prostate cancer incidence, mortality, and survival rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 1017-24
Chodak G. Prostate cancer: epidemiology, screening, and biomarkers. Rev Urol 2006; 8: S3-8
Zlotta AR, Egawa S, Pushkar D et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer on autopsy: cross-sectional study on unscreened Caucasian and Asian men. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105: 1050-8
Zhang J, Hricak H, Shukla-Dave A et al. Clinical stage T1c prostate cancer: evaluation with endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2009; 253: 425-34
Epstein JI. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on the needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24: 477
King CR. Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int J Cancer 2000; 90: 305-11
Ghani HR, Grigor K, Tulloch DN, Bollina PR, McNeill SA. Trends in reporting Gleason score 1991 to 2001: changes in the pathologist's practice. Eur Urol 2005; 24: 477
Kane CJ, Presti JC Jr, Amling CL et al. Changing nature of high risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 177: 113
Kasivisvanathan V, Ranniko AS, Borghi M et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767-77
Vickers A, Ehdaie B. MRI-targeted biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 589
Helgstrand JT, Røder MA, Klemann N et al. Trends in incidence and 5-year mortality in men with newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer-A population-based analysis of 2 national cohorts. Cancer 2018; 124: 2931-8
Evans SM, Patabendi Bandarage V, Kronborg C, Earnest A, Millar J, Clouston D. Gleason group concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens: a cohort study from Prostate Cancer Outcome Registry - Victoria. Prostate Int 2016; 4: 145-51
Yang DD, Mahal BA, Muralidhar V et al. Risk of upgrading and upstaging among 10000 patients with Gleason 3+4 favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus 2019; 5: 69-76
Calio BP, Sidana A, Sugano D et al. Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology - does saturation biopsy of index lesion during multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy help? J Urol 2017; 199: 976-82
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969-74
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Prostate Cancer Nomograms. Available at: https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms/prostate. Accessed August 2018