MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.
Journal
The New England journal of medicine
ISSN: 1533-4406
Titre abrégé: N Engl J Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0255562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 03 2020
05 03 2020
Historique:
entrez:
5
3
2020
pubmed:
5
3
2020
medline:
17
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The use of 12-core systematic prostate biopsy is associated with diagnostic inaccuracy that contributes to both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Biopsies performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting may reduce the misclassification of prostate cancer in men with MRI-visible lesions. Men with MRI-visible prostate lesions underwent both MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy. The primary outcome was cancer detection according to grade group (i.e., a clustering of Gleason grades). Grade group 1 refers to clinically insignificant disease; grade group 2 or higher, cancer with favorable intermediate risk or worse; and grade group 3 or higher, cancer with unfavorable intermediate risk or worse. Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens were recorded. Secondary outcomes were the detection of cancers of grade group 2 or higher and grade group 3 or higher, cancer detection stratified by previous biopsy status, and grade reclassification between biopsy and radical prostatectomy. A total of 2103 men underwent both biopsy methods; cancer was diagnosed in 1312 (62.4%) by a combination of the two methods (combined biopsy), and 404 (19.2%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Cancer detection rates on MRI-targeted biopsy were significantly lower than on systematic biopsy for grade group 1 cancers and significantly higher for grade groups 3 through 5 (P<0.01 for all comparisons). Combined biopsy led to cancer diagnoses in 208 more men (9.9%) than with either method alone and to upgrading to a higher grade group in 458 men (21.8%). However, if only MRI-target biopsies had been performed, 8.8% of clinically significant cancers (grade group ≥3) would have been misclassified. Among the 404 men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, combined biopsy was associated with the fewest upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis of surgical specimens (3.5%), as compared with MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%). Among patients with MRI-visible lesions, combined biopsy led to more detection of all prostate cancers. However, MRI-targeted biopsy alone underestimated the histologic grade of some tumors. After radical prostatectomy, upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis were substantially lower after combined biopsy. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; Trio Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00102544.).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The use of 12-core systematic prostate biopsy is associated with diagnostic inaccuracy that contributes to both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Biopsies performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting may reduce the misclassification of prostate cancer in men with MRI-visible lesions.
METHODS
Men with MRI-visible prostate lesions underwent both MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy. The primary outcome was cancer detection according to grade group (i.e., a clustering of Gleason grades). Grade group 1 refers to clinically insignificant disease; grade group 2 or higher, cancer with favorable intermediate risk or worse; and grade group 3 or higher, cancer with unfavorable intermediate risk or worse. Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens were recorded. Secondary outcomes were the detection of cancers of grade group 2 or higher and grade group 3 or higher, cancer detection stratified by previous biopsy status, and grade reclassification between biopsy and radical prostatectomy.
RESULTS
A total of 2103 men underwent both biopsy methods; cancer was diagnosed in 1312 (62.4%) by a combination of the two methods (combined biopsy), and 404 (19.2%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Cancer detection rates on MRI-targeted biopsy were significantly lower than on systematic biopsy for grade group 1 cancers and significantly higher for grade groups 3 through 5 (P<0.01 for all comparisons). Combined biopsy led to cancer diagnoses in 208 more men (9.9%) than with either method alone and to upgrading to a higher grade group in 458 men (21.8%). However, if only MRI-target biopsies had been performed, 8.8% of clinically significant cancers (grade group ≥3) would have been misclassified. Among the 404 men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, combined biopsy was associated with the fewest upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis of surgical specimens (3.5%), as compared with MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with MRI-visible lesions, combined biopsy led to more detection of all prostate cancers. However, MRI-targeted biopsy alone underestimated the histologic grade of some tumors. After radical prostatectomy, upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis were substantially lower after combined biopsy. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; Trio Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00102544.).
Identifiants
pubmed: 32130814
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
pmc: PMC7323919
mid: NIHMS1590450
doi:
Substances chimiques
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00102544']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
917-928Subventions
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : Z99 CA999999
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : Intramural Research Program
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Références
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Apr;3(2):216-223
pubmed: 31239236
Eur Urol. 2017 May;71(5):760-763
pubmed: 27939073
N Engl J Med. 2016 Oct 13;375(15):1415-1424
pubmed: 27626136
APMIS. 2016 Jun;124(6):433-5
pubmed: 27150257
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt B):E783-8
pubmed: 23130821
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
JAMA. 2005 May 4;293(17):2095-101
pubmed: 15870412
J Urol. 2013 Aug;190(2):509-14
pubmed: 23416641
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 25;4:CD012663
pubmed: 31022301
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Nov;48(5):1326-1335
pubmed: 29603833
J Urol. 2018 Nov;200(5):1022-1029
pubmed: 29886090
J Urol. 2017 Oct;198(4):832-838
pubmed: 28483574
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):100-109
pubmed: 30470502
Stat Med. 2005 Mar 15;24(5):729-40
pubmed: 15696504
Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):300-309
pubmed: 30017404
J Urol. 2013 Nov;190(5):1721-1727
pubmed: 23727310
Eur Urol. 2019 May;75(5):712-720
pubmed: 30509763
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33(30):3379-85
pubmed: 26324359
BJU Int. 2013 May;111(5):753-60
pubmed: 23464824
Cancer. 2016 Mar 15;122(6):884-92
pubmed: 26749141
JAMA Surg. 2019 Sep 1;154(9):811-818
pubmed: 31188412
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 13;379(24):2319-2329
pubmed: 30575473
J Urol. 2013 Aug;190(2):419-26
pubmed: 23659877
J Urol. 2018 Apr;199(4):976-982
pubmed: 29154904
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
Eur Urol. 2012 May;61(5):1019-24
pubmed: 22336380
Curr Urol. 2018 Jun;11(4):182-188
pubmed: 29997460
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7
pubmed: 25626035
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):428-35
pubmed: 26166626
J Urol. 2013 Jun;189(6):2039-46
pubmed: 23485507
Eur Urol. 2013 Jan;63(1):101-7
pubmed: 22980443
Eur Urol. 2013 Oct;64(4):544-52
pubmed: 23537686
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 09;379(6):589-590
pubmed: 30089067
Urol Oncol. 2015 Jan;33(1):17.e1-17.e7
pubmed: 25443268
Am J Clin Oncol. 2018 Aug;41(8):723-729
pubmed: 27906722
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 20;33(3):272-7
pubmed: 25512465
Eur Urol. 2006 Sep;50(3):498-505
pubmed: 16631303
Radiology. 2013 Jul;268(1):144-52
pubmed: 23468576
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566