Pathological features of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 MRI lesions in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens.
MRI
biopsy
fusion biopsies
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
risk
systematic biopsies
targeted biopsies
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
7
8
2021
medline:
14
5
2022
entrez:
6
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the whole pathology spectrum of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 lesions, identified on magnetic resonance imaging, using systematic (SB), targeted biopsy (TB) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen analysis. From a prospective database of patients undergoing RP after a combination of SB (median 12 cores) and fusion TB (median 3 cores), we included 150 PI-RADS 3 cases. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined by a Grade Group 2 or more. The primary endpoints were unfavourable features in RP specimens. Targeted biopsy was negative in 20.7% of patients. Final Grade Group 3 or more and a pT3 stage was reported in 36.7% and 38.7% of RP specimens. The upgrading rate was 38.2% between biopsy and RP specimens. The concordance rate between Grade Group on TB and RP was only 38.0%. The two independent predictive factors for unfavourable disease (pT3-4 and/or final Grade Group 3-5) were prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD; P = 0.001) and presence of csPCa on TB (odds ratio 3.7; P = 0.001). The risk of unfavourable disease was increased 2.3-fold and 5.8-fold, respectively, for patients with a PSAD between 0.15 and 0.20, and a PSAD >0.20 ng/mL/g. The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate was 93.2%. PI-RADS 3 lesions exhibited aggressive features in almost 40% of cases. PSAD and presence of csPCa on TB are independent predictive factors for high-grade and/or extraprostatic disease. A combination of SB and TB improve grade prediction compared to use of TB alone.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
621-626Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors BJU International © 2021 BJU International.
Références
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 618-29
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767-77
Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 569-76
Siddiqui MM, George AK, Rubin R et al. Efficiency of prostate cancer diagnosis by MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy vs standard extended-sextant biopsy for MR-visible lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst 2016; 108: djw039
Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 846-53
Cornud F, Roumiguié M, Barry de Longchamps N et al. Precision matters in MR imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: evidence from a prospective study of cognitive and elastic fusion registration transrectal biopsies. Radiology 2018; 287: 534-42
Hansen NL, Koo BC, Warren AY, Kastner C, Barrett T. Sub-differentiating equivocal PI-RADS-3 lesions in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate to improve cancer detection. Eur J Radiol 2017; 95: 307-13
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 100-9
Ploussard G, Borgmann H, Briganti A et al. Positive pre-biopsy MRI: are systematic biopsies still useful in addition to targeted biopsies? World J Urol 2019; 37: 243-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2399
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-57
Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imag-ing and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 41-9
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 570-8
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, 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
Scialpi M, Martorana E, Aisa MC, Rondoni V, D'Andrea A, Bianchi G. Score 3 prostate lesions: a gray zone for PI-RADS v2. Turk J Urol 2017; 43: 237-40
Schoots IG, Padhani AR. Personalizing prostate cancer diagnosis with multivariate risk prediction tools: how should prostate MRI be incorporated? World J Urol 2020; 38: 531-45
Goldman H, Singh N, Harding C et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer and index lesion location: accuracy of mpMRI. ANZ J Surg 2018; 89: 106-10
Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JGR et al. Results of targeted biopsy in men with magnetic resonance imaging lesions classified equivocal, likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2018; 73: 353-60
Gosein M, Pang E, Chang S et al. Outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy of PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions. Can Assoc Radiol J 2018; 69: 303-10
Maggi M, Panebianco V, Mosca A et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 category cases at multiparametric magnetic resonance for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2020; 6: 463-78
Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 2016; 122: 884-92
Diamand R, Oderda M, Al Hajj Obeid W et al. A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2019; 37: 2109-17.
Ploussard G, Beauval J-B, Renard-Penna R et al. Assessment of the minimal targeted biopsy core number per MRI lesion for improving prostate cancer grading prediction. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 225
Covin B, Roumiguié M, Quintyn-Ranty ML et al. Refining the risk-stratification of transrectal biopsy-detected prostate cancer by elastic fusion registration transperineal biopsies. World J Urol 2019; 37: 269-75
Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016; 280: 793-804
Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M, Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, PRECISION Study Group. Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 3: 615-9
Cornud F, Roumiguié M, Barry de Longchamps N et al. Precision matters in MR imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: evidence from a prospective study of cognitive and elastic fusion registration transrectal biopsies. Radiology 2018; 287: 534-42