Pathological Accuracy in Prostate Cancer: Single-Center Outcomes of 3 Different Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Techniques and Random Systematic Biopsy.
Journal
Turkish journal of urology
ISSN: 2149-3235
Titre abrégé: Turk J Urol
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 101643563
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
entrez:
5
10
2022
pubmed:
6
10
2022
medline:
6
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study is to compare systematic, cognitive fusion, in-bore, and software fusion prostate biopsies regarding rates of and risk factors for pathological upgrading. Charts of 291 patients with systematic biopsy (n = 105), magnetic resonance imaging- targeted cognitive fusion (n = 58), in-bore (n = 68), and software fusion biopsy (n = 60), and who subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy were retrospectively evaluated. The degree of similarity between the grade groups reported in the biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology results was recorded. Analyses of the associated factors for concordance and discordance were performed with univariate and multivariate methods. The concordance rates were as follows: systematic biopsy = 42.8%, cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy = 50%, in-bore fusion-targeted biopsy = 61.8, and software fusion biopsy = 58.4%. The upgrade rate of systematic biopsy (46.6%) was higher than cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy (27.6%), in-bore fusiontargeted biopsy (26.4%), and software fusion-targeted biopsy (18.3%). The number of positive cores was significantly associated with grade group concordance for the systematic biopsy group (P = .040). Within the cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy cohort, number of positive cores was the only parameter that exhibited a significant association with grade group concordance in multivariate analysis (P = .044). Considering the in-bore fusion-targeted biopsy group, maximum tumor length was statistically significant (P = .021). In the software fusion-targeted biopsy group, low prostate volume was found to be the only significant predictor for grade group accordance (P = .021). Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy techniques showed higher concordance and lower upgrade rates compared to systematic biopsy. For systematic biopsy and cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy, the number of positive cores was associated with grade group concordance, while maximum tumor length in in-bore fusion-targeted biopsy and low prostate volume for in-bore fusion-targeted biopsy were associated with grade group concordance. Among the MRI-targeted biopsy methods, in-bore fusion-targeted biopsy and software fusion-targeted biopsy were more accurate than cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy in terms of grade group.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36197141
doi: 10.5152/tud.2022.22165
pmc: PMC9623377
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
346-353Références
J Urol. 2008 Feb;179(2):523-7; discussion 527-8
pubmed: 18076952
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014 Mar;17(1):40-6
pubmed: 24126797
Eur Urol. 2017 Sep;72(3):442-447
pubmed: 27574819
J Urol. 2019 Dec;202(6):1182-1187
pubmed: 31246548
Urol Oncol. 2013 Oct;31(7):1060-6
pubmed: 22300755
J Pathol. 2000 Oct;192(2):229-33
pubmed: 11004700
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928
pubmed: 32130814
Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2011 Jun 20;4(5):468-75
pubmed: 21738818
Mol Clin Oncol. 2020 Apr;12(4):384-389
pubmed: 32190323
Br J Radiol. 2022 Mar 01;95(1131):20210528
pubmed: 34609900
J Urol. 2017 Feb;197(2):327-334
pubmed: 27582434
J Urol. 2017 Jul;198(1):58-64
pubmed: 28093292
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):438-50
pubmed: 25480312
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7
pubmed: 25626035
Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Jan;5(1):69-76
pubmed: 28753811
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Feb;3(1):10-20
pubmed: 31492650
Prostate. 2012 Aug 1;72(11):1179-86
pubmed: 22161896
BJU Int. 2017 Jan;119(1):50-56
pubmed: 26918298
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Jan;7(1):39-46
pubmed: 31296485
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 Jan;143(1):86-91
pubmed: 29965785
Am J Clin Pathol. 2020 Sep 8;154(4):533-535
pubmed: 32556114
BJU Int. 2016 Aug;118(2):213-20
pubmed: 26935133
Eur Urol. 2008 Aug;54(2):371-81
pubmed: 18395322
Urol Oncol. 2015 Oct;33(10):424.e9-16
pubmed: 26195330
Eur Urol. 2012 May;61(5):1019-24
pubmed: 22336380
Korean J Urol. 2010 Oct;51(10):677-82
pubmed: 21031086
Curr Urol. 2018 Jun;11(4):182-188
pubmed: 29997460
J Urol. 2018 Nov;200(5):1030-1034
pubmed: 29733837
BJU Int. 2016 Apr;117 Suppl 4:82-7
pubmed: 27094971
BMC Urol. 2019 Oct 17;19(1):94
pubmed: 31623595
Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Jul;2(4):397-404
pubmed: 31277776
Yonsei Med J. 2013 Jul;54(4):902-6
pubmed: 23709424
World J Urol. 2019 Feb;37(2):277-287
pubmed: 30610359
Int J Cancer. 2000 Dec 20;90(6):326-30
pubmed: 11180135
J Cancer. 2018 Sep 8;9(19):3634-3639
pubmed: 30310522
Urol Oncol. 2021 Mar;39(3):193.e1-193.e6
pubmed: 33127298