Magnetic resonance imaging target fusion biopsy vs. transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy - A comparative study of ISUP score upgrading risk in the final radical prostatectomy specimen
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.3.278
Accepted: August 20, 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.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to com-pare the risk of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) score upgrading between magnetic resonance imaging targeted fusion biopsy (MRI-TB) and tran-srectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-B) in the final radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen pathological report.
Materials and methods: This retrospective single center study included 51 patients with prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosed with MRI-TB and 83 patients diagnosed with TRUS-B between October/2019 and July/2021. We compared the rates of ISUP score upgrading between both groups after robotic-assisted radi-cal prostatectomy (RARP) and the specific transition of each ISUP score based on biopsy modality. The rate of ISUP score concordance and downgrading were also assessed. To define the intra and interobserver concordance for each ISUP score in biopsy and RP specimen for each biopsy modality, the Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was calculated. ISUP scores and biopsy modal-ity were selected for multivariate analysis and a logistic regres-sion model was built to provide independent risk factors of ISUP score upgrading.
Results: The difference of the rate of upgrading between MRI-TB group and TRUS-B group was statistically significant (p = 0.007) with 42.2% of patients of TRUS-B group experiencing an upgrade in their ISUP score while only 19.6% in MRI-TB group. Concordance and downgrading rates did not statistically differ between the two groups. Strength of concordance using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was fair in both groups but higher in MRI-TB group (TRUS-B group k = 0.230; p < 0.001; concordance: 47%vs. MRI/TB group k = 0.438; p < 0.001; concordance: 62.7%). Biopsy modality and ISUP 1 on biopsy were independent predic-tors of ISUP upgrading after RP.
Conclusions: MRI-TB is highly accurate with lower risk of PCa upgrading after RP than TRUS-B. Patients with ISUP 1 on biopsy have greater susceptibility to upgrading their ISUP score.
World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). GLOBOCAN 2020: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence in Portugal in 2020 [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 20]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/fact-sheets/populations/620-portugal-fact-sheets.pdf
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021; 79:243-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
Adhyam M, Gupta AK. A review on the clinical utility of PSA in cancer prostate. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2012; 3:120-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-012-0142-6
Sauter G, Steurer S, Clauditz TS, et al. Clinical utility of quanti-tative Gleason grading in prostate biopsies and prostatectomy speci-mens. Eur Urol. 2016; 69:592-598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.10.029
Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966; 50:125-128.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading pat-terns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40:244-252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
Moch H. WHO-ISUP-Graduierungssystem für Nierenkarzinome [The WHO/ISUP grading system for renal carcinoma]. Pathologe. 2016; 37:355-360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292-016-0171-y
Wallis CJD, Haider MA, Nam RK. Role of mpMRI of the prostate in screening for prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6:464-471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.04.31
Abd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed HU, et al. Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate map-ping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2014; 17:40-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2013.43
Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram N, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol. 2012; 188:2152-2157 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025
Luzzago S, Petralia G, Maresca D, et al. Pathological findings at radical prostatectomy of biopsy naïve men diagnosed with MRI tar-geted biopsy alone without concomitant standard systematic sam-pling. Urol Oncol. 2020; 38:929.e11-929.e19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.05.027
Calio BP, Sidana A, Sugano D, et al. 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. 2018; 199:976-982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.048
Bullock N, Simpkin A, Fowler S, Varma M, Kynaston H, Narahari K. Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer treated with surgery in the United Kingdom: trends and risk factors from the British Association of Urological Surgeons Radical Prostatectomy Registry. BMC Urol. 2019; 19:94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0526-9
Weinreb JC, Barentz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, v2.1 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Jul 18]. Available from: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Pi-RADS/PIRADS-V2-1.pdf
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram pre-dicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergo-ing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012; 61:480-487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Prostate Cancer Nomograms [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 19]. Available from: https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms/prostate
Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU Int. 2011; 108:E202-E210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10119.x
Dogan S, Yıldız KY, Sakaogulları ZS. The value of Gleason score upgrade in predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostate-ctomy. Bosphorus Med J 2021; 8:88-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14744/bmj.2021.00922
Bakavicius A, Drevinskaitc M, Daniunaite K, et al. The impact of prostate cancer upgrading and upstaging on biochemical recurrence and cancer-specific survival. Medicina (Kaunas) 2020; 56:61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56020061
Kovac E, Vertosick EA, Sjoberg DD, et al. Effects of pathological upstaging or upgrading on metastasis and cancer-specific mortality in men with clinical low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018; 122:1003-1009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14418
Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy speci-mens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009; 103:1647-1654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08255.x
King CR, Long JP. Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem?. Int J Cancer. 2000; 90:326-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0215(20001220)90:6<326::AID-IJC3>3.0.CO;2-J
Xu N, Wu YP, Li XD, et al. Risk of upgrading from prostate biop-sy to radical prostatectomy pathology: Is magnetic resonance imag-ing-guided biopsy more accurate?. J Cancer. 2018; 9:3634-3639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.26791
Rührup J., Preisser F., Theißen L, et al. MRI-fusion targeted vs. systematic prostate biopsy-How does the biopsy technique affect Gleason grade concordance and upgrading after radical prostatecto-my? Front Surg. 2019; 6:55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2019.00055
Kayano P.P., Carneiro A., Castilho T.M.L., et al. Comparison of Gleason upgrading rates in transrectal ultrasound systematic ran-dom biopsies versus US-MRI fusion biopsies for prostate cancer. Int. Braz J. Urol. 2018; 44:1106-1113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.0552
De Luca S, Fiori C, Bollito E, et al. Risk of Gleason Score 3+4=7 prostate cancer upgrading at radical prostatectomy is significantly reduced by targeted versus standard biopsy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020; 72:360-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03367-8
Altok M, Troncoso P, Achim MF, Matin SF, et al. Prostate can-cer upgrading or downgrading of biopsy Gleason scores at radical prostatectomy: prediction of "regression to the mean" using routine clinical features with correlating biochemical relapse rates. Asian J Androl. 2019; 21:598-604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/aja.aja_29_19
Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 mod-ified system. Mod Pathol. 2018; 31(S1):S47-S63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2017.133
Corcoran NM, Casey RG, Hong MK, et al. The ability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density to predict an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and prostatectomy diminishes with increasing tumour grade due to reduced PSA secre-tion per unit tumour volume. BJU Int. 2012; 110:36-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10681.x
Lourenço M, Pissarra P, Brito DV et al. Lesion location agree-ment between prostatic multiparametric magnetic resonance, cogni-tive fusion biopsy and radical prostatectomy piece. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 91:218-223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2019.4.218
Wang X, Zhang Y, Zhang F, et al. Predicting Gleason sum upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology: a new nomogram and its internal validation. BMC Urol. 2021; 21:3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00773-5
Qin XP, Lu QJ, Yang CH, et al. CRMP4 CpG Hypermethylation predicts upgrading to Gleason Score ≥ 8 in prostate cancer. Front Oncol. 2022; 12:840950. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.840950
Wang T, Dong L, Sun J, et al. miR-145-5p: A potential biomark-er in predicting Gleason upgrading of prostate biopsy samples scored 3+3=6. Cancer Manag Res. 2021; 13:9095-9106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S336671
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
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
