Confirmatory transperineal saturation prostate biopsy combined with mpMRI decrease the reclassification rate in men enrolled in Active Surveillance: Our experience in 100 men submitted to eight-years scheduled biopsy
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.3.270
Accepted: July 3, 2022
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Introduction: The reclassification rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men enrolled in Active Surveillance (AS) as been prospectively evaluated.
Patients and methods: One hundred patients with very low risk PCa underwent after 8 years a scheduled transperineal prostate biopsy (SPBx = 20 cores) combined with additional mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsies (4 cores) of lesions PI-RADS scores ≥ 3. All the patients, after initial diagnosis, previously had mpMRI evaluation combined with transperineal saturation prostate biopsy (confirmatory and 3-year scheduled biopsy). Risk reclassification at repeat biopsy triggering the recommen-dation for active treatment was defined as over 3 or more than 10% of positive cores, Gleason score > 6/ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2, greatest percentage of cancer (GPC) > 50%.
Results: Multiparametric MRI was suspicious (PI-RADS ≥ 3) in 30 of 100 cases (30.0%); 70 (70.0%) vs. 20 (20.0%) vs. 10 (10.0%) patients had a PI-RADS score ≤ 2 vs. 3 vs. 4, respec-tively. Two (2.0%) patients with PI-RADS score 3 and 4 were upgraded (ISUP Grade Group 2); SPBx and MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy diagnosed 100% and 0% of csPCa, respectively.
Conclusions: Transperineal SPBx combined with mpMRI at ini-tial confirmatory biopsy allow to select an high number of men at very low risk of reclassification during the AS follow up (2.0%of the cases at 8 years from diagnosis); these data could be use-ful to reduce the number of scheduled repeated prostate biopsy during the AS follow up.
Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Månsson M, et al. A 16-yr follow-up of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2019; 76:43-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.009
Klotz L. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2015; 16:24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0492-z
Kalapara AA, Verbeek JFM, Nieboer D, Movember Foundation’s Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) Consortium: adherence to active surveillance protocols for low-risk prostate cancer: results of the Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Initiative. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020; 3:80-91.
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Can 3 Tesla pelvic phase-array MRI avoid unnecessary repeat prostate biopsy in patients with PSA below 10 ng/ml? Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. 2015: 13:e27-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2014.06.013
Tosoian JI, Mamawala M, Epstein JI, et al. Active surveillance of grade group 1 prostate cancer: long-term outcomes from a large prospective cohort Eur Urol. 2020; 77:675-682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.12.017
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, and Grading Committee.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. 2016; 40:244-252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
Pepe P, Cimino S, Garufi A, et al. Confirmatory biopsy of men under active surveillance: extended versus saturation versus multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Scand J Urol. 2017; 51:260-263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1313310
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, et al. Is it time to perform only MRI targeted biopsy? Our experience in 1032 men submitted to prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2018: 200:774-778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.061
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Scott ES, START Consortium: Standards of Reporting for MRI-targeted Biopsy Studies (START) of the Prostate: Recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol. 2013; 64:544-552, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Transperineal vs transrec-tal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy: detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15:e33-e36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2016.07.007
Pepe P, Pepe L, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F. Which prostate biopsy in men enrolled in active surveillance? Experience in 110 men submit-ted to scheduled three-years transperineal saturation biopsy com-bined with fusion targeted cores. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2021; 19:305-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.01.004
Dindo D, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications. A new proposal with evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 patients and results of survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:205-213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Pepe P, Tamburo M, Pennisi M, et al. Clinical outcomes of hydro-gel spacer injection space OAR in men submitted to hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. In Vivo. 2021; 35:3385-3389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.12637
Carlsson S, Benfante N, Alvim R, et al. Long-term outcomes of active surveillance for prostate cancer: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center experience. J Urol. 2020; 203:1122-1127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000713
Bruinsma SM, Roobol MJ, Carroll PR, Movember Foundation's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) con-sortium: Expert consensus document: Semantics in active surveil-lance for men with localized prostate cancer - results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure. Nat Rev Urol. 2017; 14:312-322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2017.26
Voss J, Pal R, Ahmed S, et al. Utility of early transperineal tem-plate-guided prostate biopsy for risk stratification in men undergoing active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018; 121:863-870. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14100
Giganti F, Pecoraro M, Stavrinides V,, et al. Interobserver repro-ducibility of the PRECISE scoring system for prostate MRI on active surveillance: results from a two-centre pilot study. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30:2082-2090. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06557-2
Pepe P, Vatrano S, Cannarella R, et al. A study of gene expression by RNA-seq in patients with prostate cancer and in patients with Parkinson disease: an example of inverse comorbidity. Mol Biol Rep. 2021; 48:7627-7631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-021-06723-0
Roscigno M, Stabile A, Lughezzani G, et al. The use of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for follow-up of patients included in active surveillance protocol. Can PSA density discrimi-nate patients at different risk of reclassification? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020; 18:e698-e704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.04.006
Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pepe L, Pennisi M. Multiparametric MRI versus SelectMDx accuracy in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa in men enrolled in active surveillance. In Vivo. 2020; 34:393-396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11786
Lam TBL, MacLennan S, Willemse PM, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel Consensus statements for deferred treatment with curative intent for localised prostate cancer from an international collaborative study (DETEC-TIVE Study). Eur Urol. 2019; 76:790-813. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020
Cooley LF, Emeka AA, Meyers TJ, et al. Factors associated with time to conversion from active surveillance to treatment for prostate cancer in a multi-institutional cohort. multicenter study J Urol. 2021; 206:1147-1156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001937
Pepe P, Roscigno M, Pepe L, et al. Could 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT eval-uation reduce the number of scheduled prostate biopsy in men enrolled in Active Sirveillance protocols? J Clin Med. 2022; 16; 11:3473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123473
Shapiro DD, Gregg JR, Lim AH, et al. Comparing confirmatory biopsy outcomes between MRI-targeted biopsy and standard system-atic biopsy among men being enrolled in prostate cancer active sur-veillance. BJU Int. 2021; 127:340-348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15100
Ploussard G, Beauval JB, Lesourd M, et al. Impact of MRI and targeted biopsies on eligibility and disease reclassification in MRI-positive candidates for active surveillance on systematic biopsies. Urology. 2020; 137:126-132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.039
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Can MRI/TRUS fusion tar-geted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation of men in active surveillance? World J Urol. 2016; 34:1249-1453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1749-3
Pepe P, Pepe L, Cosentino S, et al. Detection Rate of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. mpMRI targeted biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer. Anticancer Res. 2022; 42:3011-3015. 15785. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15785
Pepe P, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F. How many cores should be obtained during saturation biopsy in the era of multiparametric mag-netic resonance? Experience in 875 patients submitted to repeat prostate biopsy. Urology. 2020; 137:133-137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.016
Pepe P, Aragona F. Morbidity following transperineal prostate biopsy in 3,000 patients submitted to 12 vs. 18 vs. more than 24 nee-dle cores. Urology. 2013; 81:1142-1146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.02.019
Müller G, Bonkat G, Rieken M, et al. Potential consequences of low biopsy core number in selection of patients with prostate cancer for current active surveillance protocols. Urology. 2013; 81:837-842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.10.068
Lu AJ, Syed JS, Ghabili K, et al. Role of core number and location in targeted magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2019; 76:14-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.008
Villa L, Salonia A, Capitanio U, et al. The number of cores at first biopsy may suggest the need for a confirmatory biopsy in patients eli-gible for active surveillance-implication for clinical decision making in the real-life setting. Urology. 2014; 84:634-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.070
Kaye DR, Qi J, Morgan TM, and Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative. Pathological upgrading at radical prostatectomy for patients with Grade Group 1 prostate cancer: implications of confirmatory testing for patients considering active surveillance. BJU Int. 2019; 123:846-853. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14554
Amin A, Scheltema MJ, Shnier R, et al. The Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance "MRIAS" Trial: use of baseline multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging and saturation biopsy to reduce the frequency of surveillance prostate biopsies. J Urol. 2020; 203:910-917. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000693
Lacetera V, Antezza A, Papaveri A, et al. MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy in men on active surveillance: Our experience. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021; 93:88-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.1.88
Mottet N, Cornford P, van der bergh RCN, et al. EAU Oncology guideline: Prostate Cancer, Amsterdam 2022.
Ediz C, Akan S, Temel MC, Yilmaz O. The importance of PSA-Density in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 92:136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.2.136
Rajwa P, Sprenkle PC, Leapman MS. When and how should Active Surveillance for prostate cancer be de-escalated? Eur Urol Focus. 2021; 7:297-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.01.001
Montironi R, Santoni M, Mazzucchelli R, et al. The role of the uro-pathologist in this series should be emphasized as shown by Montironi R, Prostate cancer: from Gleason scoring to prognostic grade grouping. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2016; 16:433-440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.2016.1160780
Fandella A, Scattoni V, Galosi A, et al. Italian Prostate Biopsies Group: 2016 updated guidelines insights. Anticancer Res. 2017; 37:413-424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11333
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
