Performance of systematic, MRI-targeted biopsies alone or in combination for the prediction of unfavourable disease in MRI-positive low-risk prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance.
Active surveillance
Biopsy
Fusion biopsies
Low risk
Prostate cancer
Radical prostatectomy
Targeted biopsies, MRI
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
16
05
2019
accepted:
07
06
2019
pubmed:
15
6
2019
medline:
29
12
2020
entrez:
15
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the upstaging/upgrading rates of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) according to the biopsy scheme used (systematic (SB), targeted biopsies (TB), or both) in the setting of positive pre-biopsy MRI. We included 143 consecutive men fulfilling the Toronto University active surveillance (AS) criteria who underwent a pre-biopsy positive MRI, a combination of SB and software-based fusion TB, and a radical prostatectomy, in two expert centres. The primary endpoints were the pathological upgrading and upstaging rates. Overall unfavourable disease (OUD) was defined by any pT3-4 and/or pN1 and/or ≥ GG 3. Using TB alone would have missed 21.7% of cancers including 16.7% of ≥ GG 3. The use of TB was significantly associated with a lower risk of ≥ Grade Group (GG) 3 disease (p < 0.006) in RP specimens. Combination of SB and TB lowered this risk by 39%, compared with TB alone. The biopsy scheme did not affect the upstaging rates which were substantial even in case of combination scheme (from 37 to 46%). OUD was detected in approximately 50% of cases. The presence of high grade on TB was the only independent predictive factor for both ≥ GG 2 (p = 0.015) and ≥ GG 3 (p = 0.023) in RP specimens. High grade on TB biopsies represented the major predictor of upgrading. Combination of SB and TB better defined the sub-group of patients having the lowest risk of reclassification, compared with TB or SB alone. The risk of non-organ-confined disease remained high, and could not be accurately predicted by MRI or systematic/targeted biopsy features.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31197523
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02848-x
pii: 10.1007/s00345-019-02848-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
663-671Références
Urology. 2018 Feb;112:12-19
pubmed: 28962878
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):41-9
pubmed: 26361169
World J Urol. 2019 Feb;37(2):235-241
pubmed: 29785491
BJU Int. 2018 Nov;122(5):823-830
pubmed: 29772103
J Urol. 2014 Aug;192(2):385-90
pubmed: 24512956
Eur Urol. 2016 Dec;70(6):954-960
pubmed: 27329565
J Urol. 2007 Jan;177(1):107-12; discussion 112
pubmed: 17162015
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Apr 29;108(9):
pubmed: 27130933
Urology. 2009 May;73(5):1087-91
pubmed: 19195695
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
J Urol. 2012 Apr;187(4):1247-52
pubmed: 22335871
Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57
pubmed: 22322308
J Urol. 2016 Dec;196(6):1651-1658
pubmed: 27569437
BJU Int. 2008 Nov;102(9):1074-9
pubmed: 18778348
Eur Urol. 2015 Dec;68(6):1045-53
pubmed: 25656808
J Urol. 2015 Mar;193(3):807-11
pubmed: 25261803
Eur Urol. 2018 Sep;74(3):357-368
pubmed: 29937198
Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Mar;5(2):171-178
pubmed: 28801241
Eur Urol. 2017 Jun;71(6):896-903
pubmed: 28063613
Cancer. 2007 Dec 1;110(11):2441-7
pubmed: 17932909
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
World J Urol. 2017 Jul;35(7):1015-1022
pubmed: 27830373
Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):627-36
pubmed: 25511988
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 20;33(3):272-7
pubmed: 25512465
J Urol. 2007 Mar;177(3):907-10
pubmed: 17296373
World J Urol. 2019 Feb;37(2):243-251
pubmed: 29967944
Radiology. 2018 May;287(2):534-542
pubmed: 29361246