Is There an Impact of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy on the Risk of Upgrading in Final Pathology in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy? An European Association of Urology-Young Academic Urologists Prostate Cancer Working Group Multi-institutional Study.


Journal

European urology focus
ISSN: 2405-4569
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Focus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101665661

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2023
Historique:
received: 10 11 2022
revised: 30 12 2022
accepted: 25 01 2023
medline: 31 7 2023
pubmed: 7 2 2023
entrez: 6 2 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The concordance rates of transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) prostate biopsies with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen have been assessed poorly in men diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx). To evaluate International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) concordance rates between the final pathology at RP and MRI-TBx or MRI-TBx + random biopsy (RB) according to the biopsy approach. A multi-institutional database included patients diagnosed with TP or TR treated with RP. TP-TBx or TR-TBx of the prostate. The ISUP grade at biopsy was compared with the final pathology. A multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA) was performed to assess the association between the biopsy approach (TP-TBx vs TR-TBx) and ISUP upgrading, downgrading, concordance, and clinically relevant increase (CRI). Overall, 752 (59%) versus 530 (41%) patients underwent TR versus TP. At the MVA, TP-TBx was an independent predictor of upgrading (odds ratio [OR] 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-0.9, p < 0.01) and improved concordance relative to the final pathology (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.5, p < 0.01) after adjusting for age, cT stage, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, number of targeted cores, prostate-specific antigen, and prostate volume. Moreover, TP-TBx was associated with a lower risk of CRI than TR-TBx (OR 0.7, p < 0.01). This held true when considering patients who underwent MRI-TBx + RB (OR 0.6, p < 0.01). The inclusion of men who had RP represents a potential selection bias. The adoption of TP-TBx compared with TR-TBx may reduce the risk of upgrading and improve the concordance of biopsy grade with the final pathology. The TP approach decreases the odds of CRI with improved patient selection for the correct active treatment. In this report, we evaluated whether transperineal (TP) targeted biopsy (TBx) may improve the concordance of clinically significant prostate cancer with the final pathology in comparison with transrectal (TR) TBx in a large worldwide population. We found that TP-TBx might increase concordance compared with TR-TBx. Adding random biopsies to target one increases accuracy; however, concordance with the final pathology is overall suboptimal even with the TP approach.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The concordance rates of transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) prostate biopsies with radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen have been assessed poorly in men diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) concordance rates between the final pathology at RP and MRI-TBx or MRI-TBx + random biopsy (RB) according to the biopsy approach.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A multi-institutional database included patients diagnosed with TP or TR treated with RP.
INTERVENTION
TP-TBx or TR-TBx of the prostate.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The ISUP grade at biopsy was compared with the final pathology. A multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA) was performed to assess the association between the biopsy approach (TP-TBx vs TR-TBx) and ISUP upgrading, downgrading, concordance, and clinically relevant increase (CRI).
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
Overall, 752 (59%) versus 530 (41%) patients underwent TR versus TP. At the MVA, TP-TBx was an independent predictor of upgrading (odds ratio [OR] 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-0.9, p < 0.01) and improved concordance relative to the final pathology (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.5, p < 0.01) after adjusting for age, cT stage, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, number of targeted cores, prostate-specific antigen, and prostate volume. Moreover, TP-TBx was associated with a lower risk of CRI than TR-TBx (OR 0.7, p < 0.01). This held true when considering patients who underwent MRI-TBx + RB (OR 0.6, p < 0.01). The inclusion of men who had RP represents a potential selection bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The adoption of TP-TBx compared with TR-TBx may reduce the risk of upgrading and improve the concordance of biopsy grade with the final pathology. The TP approach decreases the odds of CRI with improved patient selection for the correct active treatment.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In this report, we evaluated whether transperineal (TP) targeted biopsy (TBx) may improve the concordance of clinically significant prostate cancer with the final pathology in comparison with transrectal (TR) TBx in a large worldwide population. We found that TP-TBx might increase concordance compared with TR-TBx. Adding random biopsies to target one increases accuracy; however, concordance with the final pathology is overall suboptimal even with the TP approach.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36746729
pii: S2405-4569(23)00032-9
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.01.016
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Multicenter Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

621-628

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Fabio Zattoni (F)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

Giancarlo Marra (G)

Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.

Alberto Martini (A)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Veeru Kasivisvanathan (V)

Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Jeremy Grummet (J)

Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Timothy Harkin (T)

Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Guillaume Ploussard (G)

Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Toulouse, France.

Jonathan Olivier (J)

Department of Urology, Lille University, Lille, France.

Peter K Chiu (PK)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Massimo Valerio (M)

Urology Department, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Alessandro Marquis (A)

University of Turin, Molinette Hospital, Turin, Italy.

Paolo Gontero (P)

University of Turin, Molinette Hospital, Turin, Italy.

Hongqian Guo (H)

Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.

Junlong Zhuang (J)

Department of Urology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.

Mark Frydenberg (M)

Department of Surgery, Faculty of medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Cabrini Institute, Cabrini Health, Malvern, VIC, Australia.

Daniel Moon (D)

Royal Melbourne Clinical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.

Alessandro Morlacco (A)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

Alexander Kretschmer (A)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Munich, Campus Großhadern, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.

Francesco Barletta (F)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Isabel Heidegger (I)

Department of Urology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Derya Tilki (D)

Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Roderick van den Bergh (R)

Department of Urology, St Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Fabrizio Dal Moro (F)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

Alberto Briganti (A)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Francesco Montorsi (F)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Giacomo Novara (G)

Department Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Urologic Unit, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

Giorgio Gandaglia (G)

Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Gianfranco Soldera Prostate Cancer Laboratory, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH