Risk and predictors of adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy in patients diagnosed with IUSP 1-2 prostate cancer at MRI-targeted biopsy: a multicenter analysis.
Active surveillance
ISUP
Outcomes
Prostate cancer
Radical prostatectomy
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
06
07
2022
accepted:
25
11
2022
pubmed:
20
12
2022
medline:
25
2
2023
entrez:
19
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although active surveillance (AS) is recommended for low- to favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa), risk of upgrading at radical prostatectomy (RP) is not negligible. Available studies based on systematic transrectal ultrasound biopsy might not be applicable to contemporary cohorts diagnosed with MRI-targeted biopsy (TB). The aim of the present study is to explore rates and risk factors for adverse outcomes (AO) at RP in patients with ISUP ≤ 2 PCa detected at TB with concomitant systematic biopsy (SB). Multicenter, retrospective analysis of 475 consecutive patients with ISUP ≤ 2 PCa at MRI-TB + SB is treated with RP. AO were defined as ISUP upgrading, adverse pathology (upgrading to ISUP ≥ 3 and/or ≥ pT3 at RP, and/or pN1) (AP) or biochemical recurrence (BCR) in men with follow-up (n = 327). The rate of ISUP upgrading, upgrading ≥ 3, and AP were 39%, 21%, and 43%. Compared to ISUP2, men with ISUP1 PCa had a higher rate of overall upgrading (27 vs. 67%, p < 0.001), but less upgrading to ≥ 3 (27 vs. 10%, p < 0.001). AP was more common when ISUP2 was detected with a combined MRI-TB + SB approach compared to considering TB (p = 0.02) or SB (p = 0.01) alone. PSA, PSA density, PI-RADS, ISUP at TB, overall biopsy ISUP and EAU classification were predictors of upgrading to ISUP ≥ 3 and AP. The 1 year BCR-free survival was 94% with no differences in BCR rates between subgroups. Upgrading in ISUP ≤ 2 PCa remains prevalent even in men diagnosed in the MRI era. The use of MRI-TB with concomitant SB allows for the accurate identification of ISUP2 PCa and predicts the risk of AO at RP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36534151
doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04236-4
pii: 10.1007/s00345-022-04236-4
pmc: PMC9947075
doi:
Substances chimiques
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
427-434Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E (1987) Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med 317:909–916. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198710083171501
doi: 10.1056/NEJM198710083171501
pubmed: 2442609
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
pubmed: 28110982
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
pubmed: 29552975
pmcid: 9084630
Eklund M, Jäderling F, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Annerstedt M, Aly M et al (2021) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer screening. N Engl J Med 385:908–920. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2100852
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100852
pubmed: 34237810
Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, Landis P, Wolf S, Trock BJ et al (2015) Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33:3379–3385. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.5764
pubmed: 26324359
pmcid: 4863946
Klotz L (2012) Active surveillance: the Canadian experience. Curr Opin Urol 22:222–230. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e328352598c
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e328352598c
pubmed: 22453335
Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A et al (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63:597–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005
pubmed: 23159452
Willemse P-PM, Davis NF, Grivas N, Zattoni F, Lardas M, Briers E et al (2021) Systematic review of active surveillance for clinically localised prostate cancer to develop recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and surveillance repeat biopsy strategy. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.12.007
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.12.007
pubmed: 34980492
Schiffmann J, Wenzel P, Salomon G, Budäus L, Schlomm T, Minner S et al (2015) Heterogeneity in D’Amico classification-based low-risk prostate cancer: differences in upgrading and upstaging according to active surveillance eligibility. Urol Oncol 33(329):e13-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.04.004
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.04.004
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
pubmed: 26427566
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Fütterer JJ, Gill IS et al (2013) Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 64:544–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030
pubmed: 23537686
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA et al (2016) The 2014 International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40:244–252. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
pubmed: 26492179
Caster JM, Falchook AD, Hendrix LH, Chen RC (2015) Risk of pathologic upgrading or locally advanced disease in early prostate cancer patients based on biopsy Gleason score and PSA: a population-based study of modern patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 92:244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.01.051
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.01.051
pubmed: 25841621
Yang DD, Mahal BA, Muralidhar V, Nezolosky MD, Vastola ME, Labe SA et al (2019) Risk of upgrading and upstaging among 10 000 patients with Gleason 3 + 4 favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus 5:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.05.011
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.05.011
pubmed: 28753811
Wong L-M, Tang V, Peters J, Costello A, Corcoran N (2016) Feasibility for active surveillance in biopsy Gleason 3 + 4 prostate cancer: an Australian radical prostatectomy cohort. BJU Int 117(4):82–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13460
doi: 10.1111/bju.13460
pubmed: 27094971
Ploussard G, Isbarn H, Briganti A, Sooriakumaran P, Surcel CI, Salomon L et al (2015) Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2323 patients. Urol Oncol 33(71):e1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.007
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.007
Gandaglia G, van den Bergh RCN, Tilki D, Fossati N, Ost P, Surcel CI et al (2018) How can we expand active surveillance criteria in patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer without increasing the risk of misclassification? Development of a novel risk calculator. BJU Int 122:823–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14391
doi: 10.1111/bju.14391
pubmed: 29772103
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F et al (2019) 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 20:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
pubmed: 30470502
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M et al (2019) 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 75:570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
pubmed: 30477981
Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Systematic Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
Calio BP, Sidana A, Sugano D, Gaur S, Maruf M, Jain AL et al (2018) 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 199:976–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.048
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.048
pubmed: 29154904
pmcid: 7983157
Tschirdewahn S, Wiesenfarth M, Bonekamp D, Püllen L, Reis H, Panic A et al (2021) Detection of significant prostate cancer using target saturation in transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography-fusion biopsy. Eur Urol Focus 7:1300–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.020
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.020
pubmed: 32660838
Brisbane WG, Priester AM, Ballon J, Kwan L, Delfin MK, Felker ER et al (2022) Targeted prostate biopsy: umbra, penumbra, and value of perilesional sampling. Eur Urol S0302–2838(22):00010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.008
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.008
Morlacco A, Cheville JC, Rangel LJ, Gearman DJ, Karnes RJ (2017) Adverse disease features in Gleason Score 3 + 4 “favorable intermediate-risk” prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance. Eur Urol 72:442–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.043
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.043
pubmed: 27574819
Pham DM, Kim JK, Lee S, Hong SK, Byun S-S, Lee SE (2020) Prediction of pathologic upgrading in Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer: who is a candidate for active surveillance? Investig Clin Urol 61:405–410. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2020.61.4.405
doi: 10.4111/icu.2020.61.4.405
pubmed: 32665997
pmcid: 7329648
Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F, Moore CM, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2018) Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 122:946–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14358
doi: 10.1111/bju.14358
pubmed: 29679430
Hamoen EHJ, Hoeks CMA, Somford DM, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, Oddens JR et al (2019) Value of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance after 1 yr follow-up. Eur Urol Focus 5:407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.12.008
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.12.008
pubmed: 29331622
Fujihara A, Iwata T, Shakir A, Tafuri A, Cacciamani GE, Gill K et al (2021) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging facilitates reclassification during active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 127:712–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15272
doi: 10.1111/bju.15272
pubmed: 33043575