1
|
Zhang J, Xu L, Zhang G, Zhang D, Zhang X, Bai X, Chen L, Peng Q, Jin Z, Sun H. Multiparametric MRI to Predict Gleason Score Upgrading and Downgrading at Radical Prostatectomy Compared to Presurgical Biopsy. Korean J Radiol 2025; 26:422-434. [PMID: 40169496 PMCID: PMC12055267 DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2024.1008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2024] [Revised: 01/25/2025] [Accepted: 02/15/2025] [Indexed: 04/03/2025] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study investigated the value of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) in predicting Gleason score (GS) upgrading and downgrading in radical prostatectomy (RP) compared with presurgical biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Clinical and mpMRI data were retrospectively collected from 219 patients with prostate disease between January 2015 and December 2021. All patients underwent systematic prostate biopsy followed by RP. MpMRI included conventional diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze the factors associated with GS upgrading and downgrading after RP. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to estimate the area under the curve (AUC) to indicate the performance of the multivariable logistic regression models in predicting GS upgrade and downgrade after RP. RESULTS The GS after RP was upgraded, downgraded, and unchanged in 92, 43, and 84 patients, respectively. The AUCs of the clinical (percentage of positive biopsy cores [PBCs], time from biopsy to RP) and mpMRI models (prostate cancer [PCa] location, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] v2.1 score) for predicting GS upgrading after RP were 0.714 and 0.749, respectively. The AUC of the combined diagnostic model (age, percentage of PBCs, tPSA, PCa location, and PI-RADS v2.1 score) was 0.816, which was larger than that of the clinical factors alone (P < 0.001). The AUCs of the clinical (age, percentage of PBCs, ratio of free/total PSA [F/T]) and mpMRI models (PCa diameter, PCa location, and PI-RADS v2.1 score) for predicting GS downgrading after RP were 0.749 and 0.835, respectively. The AUC of the combined diagnostic model (age, percentage of PBCs, F/T, PCa diameter, PCa location, and PI-RADS v2.1 score) was 0.883, which was larger than that of the clinical factors alone (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Combining clinical factors and mpMRI findings can predict GS upgrade and downgrade after RP more accurately than using clinical factors alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiahui Zhang
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Lili Xu
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Gumuyang Zhang
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Daming Zhang
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Xiaoxiao Zhang
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Xin Bai
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Li Chen
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Qianyu Peng
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Zhengyu Jin
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
- National Center for Quality Control of Radiology, Beijing, China.
| | - Hao Sun
- Department of Radiology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Disease, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
- National Center for Quality Control of Radiology, Beijing, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Smani S, Sundaresan V, Lokeshwar SD, Choksi AU, Carbonella J, Brito J, Renzulli J, Sprenkle P, Leapman MS. Risk factors for Gleason score upgrade from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy. EXPLORATION OF TARGETED ANTI-TUMOR THERAPY 2024; 5:981-996. [PMID: 39280242 PMCID: PMC11390291 DOI: 10.37349/etat.2024.00259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2024] [Accepted: 05/20/2024] [Indexed: 09/18/2024] Open
Abstract
Accurate identification of prostate cancer Gleason grade group remains an important component of the initial management of clinically localized disease. However, Gleason score upgrading (GSU) from biopsy to radical prostatectomy can occur in up to a third of patients treated with surgery. Concern for disease undergrading remains a source of diagnostic uncertainty, contributing to both over-treatment of low-risk disease as well as under-treatment of higher-risk prostate cancer. This review examines the published literature concerning risk factors for GSU from time of biopsy to prostatectomy final pathology. Risk factors identified for Gleason upgrading include patient demographic and clinical factors including age, body mass index, race, prostate volume, and biomarker based assays, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density, and testosterone values. In addition, prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings have also been associated with GSU. Biopsy-specific characteristics associated with GSU include lower number of biopsy cores and lack of targeted methodology, and possibly increasing percent biopsy core positivity. Recognition of risk factors for disease undergrading may prompt confirmatory testing including repeat sampling or imaging. Continued refinements in imaging guided biopsy techniques may also reduce sampling error contributing to undergrading.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shayan Smani
- Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
| | | | - Soum D. Lokeshwar
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
| | - Ankur U. Choksi
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
| | - Jeffrey Carbonella
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
| | - Joseph Brito
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
| | - Joseph Renzulli
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
| | - Preston Sprenkle
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
| | - Michael S. Leapman
- Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhou L, Xu LL, Zheng LL, Chen C, Xu L, Zeng JL, Li SY. Predictors of Gleason Grading Group Upgrading in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients From Transperineal Biopsy After Radical Prostatectomy. Acad Radiol 2024; 31:2838-2847. [PMID: 38233258 DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2024.01.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/05/2024] [Indexed: 01/19/2024]
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To investigate the predictors of Gleason Grading Group (GGG) upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score=3 + 3) from transperineal biopsy after radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS The clinical data of 160 patients who underwent transperineal biopsy and RP from January 2017 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. First, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to obtain independent predictors of postoperative GGG upgrading. Then receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of predictors. Finally, Linear-by-Linear Association test was used to analyze the risk trends of patients in different predictor groups in the postoperative GGG. RESULTS In this study, there were 81 cases (50.6%) in the GGG concordance group and 79 cases (49.4%) in the GGG upgrading group. Univariate analysis showed age, free/total prostate-specific antigen (f/tPSA), proportion of positive biopsies, positive target of magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) and positive target of contrast-enhanced ultrasound had significant effects on GGG upgrading (all P < .05). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, age (odds ratio [OR]=1.066, 95%CI=1.007-1.127, P = .027), f/tPSA (OR=0.001, 95%CI=0-0.146, P = .001) and positive target of MRI (OR=3.005, 95%CI=1.353-76.674, P = .007) were independent predictors. The prediction model (area under curve=0.751 P < .001) had higher predictive efficacy than all independent predictors. The proportion of patients in exposed group of different GGG increased with the level of GGG, but decreased in nonexposed group, and the linear trend was significantly different (all P < .001). CONCLUSION Age, f/tPSA, and positive target of MRI were independent predictors of postoperative GGG upgrading. The predictive model constructed had the best diagnostic efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ling Zhou
- Department of Ultrasound in Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No. 3, East Qingchun Rd, Hangzhou 310016, Zhejiang, China (L.Z., L.X., L.Z., S.L.)
| | - Li-Long Xu
- Department of Ultrasound in Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No. 3, East Qingchun Rd, Hangzhou 310016, Zhejiang, China (L.Z., L.X., L.Z., S.L.)
| | - Lin-Lin Zheng
- Department of Ultrasound in Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No. 3, East Qingchun Rd, Hangzhou 310016, Zhejiang, China (L.Z., L.X., L.Z., S.L.)
| | - Chao Chen
- Department of Radiology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China (C.C.)
| | - Li Xu
- Department of Urology Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China (L.X.)
| | - Ji-Ling Zeng
- Department of Pathology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China (J.Z.)
| | - Shi-Yan Li
- Department of Ultrasound in Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, No. 3, East Qingchun Rd, Hangzhou 310016, Zhejiang, China (L.Z., L.X., L.Z., S.L.).
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sorce G, Stabile A, Pellegrino F, Mazzone E, Mattei A, Afferi L, Serni S, Minervini A, Roumiguiè M, Malavaud B, Valerio M, Rakauskas A, Marra G, Gontero P, Porpiglia F, Guo H, Zhuang J, Gandaglia G, Montorsi F, Briganti A. The impact of mpMRI-targeted vs systematic biopsy on the risk of prostate cancer downgrading at final pathology. World J Urol 2024; 42:248. [PMID: 38647689 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04963-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/26/2023] [Accepted: 03/25/2024] [Indexed: 04/25/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Although targeted biopsies (TBx) are associated with improved disease assessment, concerns have been raised regarding the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) overgrading due to more accurate biopsy core deployment in the index lesion. METHODS We identified 1672 patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) with a positive mpMRI and ISUP ≥ 2 PCa detected via systematic biopsy (SBx) plus TBx. We compared downgrading rates at RP (ISUP 4-5, 3, and 2 at biopsy, to a lower ISUP) for PCa detected via SBx only (group 1), via TBx only (group 2), and eventually for PCa detected with the same ISUP 2-5 at both SBx and TBx (group 3), using multivariable logistic regression models (MVA). RESULTS Overall, 12 vs 14 vs 6% (n = 176 vs 227 vs 96) downgrading rates were recorded in group 1 vs group 2 vs group 3, respectively (p < 0.001). At MVA, group 2 was more likely to be downgraded (OR 1.26, p = 0.04), as compared to group 1. Conversely, group 3 was less likely to be downgraded at RP (OR 0.42, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Downgrading rates are highest when PCa is present in TBx only and, especially when the highest grade PCa is diagnosed by TBx cores only. Conversely, downgrading rates are lowest when PCa is identified with the same ISUP through both SBx and TBx. The presence of clinically significant disease at SBx + TBx may indicate a more reliable assessment of the disease at the time of biopsy potentially reducing the risk of downgrading at final pathology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Sorce
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - A Stabile
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
| | - F Pellegrino
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - E Mazzone
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - A Mattei
- Klinik Für Urologie, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzerner, Switzerland
| | - L Afferi
- Klinik Für Urologie, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzerner, Switzerland
| | - S Serni
- Department of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - A Minervini
- Department of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - M Roumiguiè
- Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France
| | - B Malavaud
- Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France
| | - M Valerio
- Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - A Rakauskas
- Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - G Marra
- Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - P Gontero
- Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - F Porpiglia
- Division of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - H Guo
- Department of Urology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - J Zhuang
- Department of Urology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - G Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - F Montorsi
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - A Briganti
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
He Y, Fan Y, Song H, Shen Q, Ruan M, Chen Y, Li D, Li X, Liu Y, Zhang K, Zhang Q. A novel biopsy scheme for prostate cancer: targeted and regional systematic biopsy. BMC Urol 2024; 24:85. [PMID: 38614971 PMCID: PMC11015685 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-024-01461-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2023] [Accepted: 03/18/2024] [Indexed: 04/15/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To explore a novel biopsy scheme for prostate cancer (PCa), and test the detection rate and pathological agreement of standard systematic (SB) + targeted (TB) biopsy and novel biopsy scheme. METHODS Positive needles were collected from 194 patients who underwent SB + TB (STB) followed by radical prostatectomy (RP). Our novel biopsy scheme, targeted and regional systematic biopsy (TrSB) was defined as TB + regional SB (4 SB-needles closest to the TB-needles). The McNemar test was utilized to compare the detection rate performance for clinical significant PCa (csPCa) and clinical insignificant PCa (ciPCa). Moreover, the accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were investigated. The agreement between the different biopsy schemes grade group (GG) and RP GG were assessed. The concordance between the biopsy and the RP GG was evaluated using weighted κ coefficient analyses. RESULTS In this study, the overall detection rate for csPCa was 83.5% (162 of 194) when SB and TB were combined. TrSB showed better NPV than TB (97.0% vs. 74.4%). Comparing to STB, the TB-detection rate of csPCa had a significant difference (p < 0.01), while TrSB showed no significant difference (p > 0.999). For ciPCa, the overall detection rate was 16.5% (32 of 194). TrSB showed better PPV (96.6% vs. 83.3%) and NPV (97.6% vs. 92.9%) than TB. Comparing to STB, the detection rate of both schemes showed no significant difference (p = 0.077 and p = 0.375). All three schemes GG showed poor agreement with RP GG (TB: 43.3%, TrSB: 46.4%, STB: 45.9%). Using weighted κ, all three schemes showed no difference (TB: 0.48, TrSB: 0.51, STB: 0.51). In our subgroup analysis (PI-RADS = 4/5, n = 154), all three schemes almost showed no difference (Weighted κ: TB-0.50, TrSB-0.51, STB-0.50). CONCLUSION Our novel biopsy scheme TrSB (TB + 4 closest SB needles) may reduce 8 cores of biopsy compared with STB (standard SB + TB), which also showed better csPCa detection rate than TB only, but the same as STB. The pathological agreement between three different biopsy schemes (TB/TrSB/STB) GG and RP GG showed no difference.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yang He
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China
- Institution of Urology, PekingUniversity, Beijing, 100034, China
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing, 100034, China
- National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, 100034, China
| | - Yu Fan
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China
- Institution of Urology, PekingUniversity, Beijing, 100034, China
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing, 100034, China
- National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, 100034, China
| | - Haitian Song
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China
- Institution of Urology, PekingUniversity, Beijing, 100034, China
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing, 100034, China
- National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, 100034, China
| | - Qi Shen
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China
- Institution of Urology, PekingUniversity, Beijing, 100034, China
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing, 100034, China
- National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, 100034, China
| | - Mingjian Ruan
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China
- Institution of Urology, PekingUniversity, Beijing, 100034, China
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing, 100034, China
- National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, 100034, China
| | - Yuke Chen
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China
- Institution of Urology, PekingUniversity, Beijing, 100034, China
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing, 100034, China
- National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, 100034, China
| | - Derun Li
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China
- Institution of Urology, PekingUniversity, Beijing, 100034, China
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing, 100034, China
- National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, 100034, China
| | - Xueying Li
- Department of Statistics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yi Liu
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
- Institution of Urology, PekingUniversity, Beijing, 100034, China.
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing, 100034, China.
- National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, 100034, China.
| | - Kai Zhang
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
- Institution of Urology, PekingUniversity, Beijing, 100034, China.
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing, 100034, China.
- National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, 100034, China.
| | - Qian Zhang
- Department of Urology, The Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, The National Urological Cancer Center of China, No. 8 Xishiku St., Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China
- Institution of Urology, PekingUniversity, Beijing, 100034, China
- Beijing Key Laboratory of Urogenital Diseases (Male) Molecular Diagnosis and Treatment Center, Beijing, 100034, China
- National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, 100034, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Pellegrino F, Stabile A, Sorce G, Mazzone E, Cannoletta D, Cirulli GO, Quarta L, Leni R, Robesti D, Brembilla G, Gandaglia G, De Cobelli F, Montorsi F, Briganti A. Variability of mpMRI diagnostic performance according to the upfront individual patient risk of having clinically significant prostate cancer. Prostate 2024; 84:473-478. [PMID: 38149793 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24665] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2023] [Revised: 11/30/2023] [Accepted: 12/15/2023] [Indexed: 12/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To assess the variation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) positive predictive value (PPV) according to each patient's risk of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) based exclusively on clinical factors. METHODS We evaluated 999 patients with positive mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 3) receiving targeted (TBx) plus systematic prostate biopsy. We built a multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA) using clinical risk factors to calculate the individual patients' risk of harboring csPCa at TBx. A second MVA tested the association between individual patients' clinical risk and mpMRI PPV accounting for the PI-RADS score. Finally, we plotted the PPV of each PI-RADS score by the individual patient pretest probability of csPCa using a LOWESS approach. RESULTS Overall, TBx found csPCa in 21%, 51%, and 80% of patients with PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions, respectively. At MVA, age, PSA, digital rectal examination (DRE), and prostate volume were significantly associated with the risk of csPCa at biopsy. DRE yielded the highest odds ratio (OR: 2.88; p < 0.001). The individual patient's clinical risk was significantly associated with mpMRI PPV (OR: 2.49; p < 0.001) using MVA. Plotting the mpMRI PPV according to the predicted clinical risks, we observed that for patients with clinical risk close to 0 versus patients with risk higher than 90%, the mpMRI PPV of PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 ranged from 0% to 75%, from 0% to 96%, and from 45% to 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION mpMRI PPV varies according to the individual pretest patient's risk based on clinical factors. These findings should be considered in the decision-making process for patients with suspect MRI findings referred for a prostate biopsy. Moreover, our data support the need for further studies to create an individualized risk prediction tool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Pellegrino
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Armando Stabile
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Gabriele Sorce
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Elio Mazzone
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Donato Cannoletta
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Ottone Cirulli
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Leonardo Quarta
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Riccardo Leni
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Daniele Robesti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Brembilla
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco De Cobelli
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Stabile A, Sorce G, Barletta F, Brembilla G, Mazzone E, Pellegrino F, Cannoletta D, Cirulli GO, Gandaglia G, De Cobelli F, Montorsi F, Briganti A. Impact of prostate MRI central review over the diagnostic performance of MRI-targeted biopsy: should we routinely ask for an expert second opinion? World J Urol 2023; 41:3231-3237. [PMID: 36943477 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04365-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2022] [Accepted: 03/01/2023] [Indexed: 03/23/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE There is substantial variability in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) protocols and inter-readers' agreement. We tested the effect of a central mpMRI review on the detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in a tertiary referral center. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 364 consecutive men with a positive externally performed mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 3) who underwent a targeted biopsy (TBx) plus a systematic biopsy at a single tertiary referral center (2018-2020). Of those mpMRIs, 32% (n = 116) were centrally reviewed. We compared the detection of csPCa between the non-central-reviewed vs reviewed group. Multivariable logistic regression models (MVA) tested the relationship between mpMRI central review and the detection of csPCa at TBx. RESULTS The detection of csPCa at TBx in non-central-reviewed vs central-reviewed group was 41 vs 63%, respectively (p = 0.001). The distribution of PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 at initial assessment vs after mpMRI central review was 0, 37, 47, and 16% vs 39, 9, 35, and 16%, respectively (p < 0.004). Of 43 patients with initial PI-RADS 3 score, respectively 67, 21, and 12, and 0% had a revised PI-RADS score of ≤ 2, 3, 4, and 5. At MVA, mpMRI central review (OR: 1.65, CI 0.85-0.98) was significantly associated with higher csPCa detection at TBx. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrated that a central review of external mpMRIs may decrease the overcall of equivocal lesions, namely PI-RADS 3, and should be considered to maximize the clinical benefit of TBx in terms of increasing the detection of csPCa and eventually decreasing the rate of unnecessary biopsies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Armando Stabile
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Gabriele Sorce
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Barletta
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Brembilla
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Elio Mazzone
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Pellegrino
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Donato Cannoletta
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Ottone Cirulli
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
| | - Francesco De Cobelli
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Experimental Oncology, Department of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pellegrino F, Mazzone E, Stabile A, Beauval JB, Marra G, Campi R, Afferi L, Zhuang J, Sorce G, Rosiello G, Barletta F, Scuderi S, Guo H, Gontero P, Minervini A, Ploussard G, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Gandaglia G. Impact of the time elapsed between prostate biopsy and surgery on the accuracy of nomograms predicting lymph node invasion in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2023; 41:387.e17-387.e25. [PMID: 37198026 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.04.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2023] [Revised: 04/13/2023] [Accepted: 04/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
We aimed to investigate whether the performance characteristics of available nomograms predicting lymph node invasion (LNI) in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) change according to the time elapsed between diagnosis and surgery. We identified 816 patients who underwent RP with extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) after combined prostate biopsy at 6 referral centers. We plotted the accuracy (ROC-derived area under the curve [AUC]) of each Briganti nomogram according to the time elapsed between biopsy ad RP. We then tested whether discrimination of the nomograms improved after accounting for the time elapsed between biopsy ad RP. The median time between biopsy and RP was 3 months. The LNI rate was 13%. The discrimination of each nomogram decreased with increasing time elapsed between biopsy and surgery, where the AUC of the 2019 Briganti nomogram was 88% vs. 70% for men undergoing surgery <2 vs. >6 months from the biopsy. The addition of the time elapsed between biopsy ad RP improved the accuracy of all available nomograms (P < 0.003), with the Briganti 2019 nomogram showing the highest discrimination. Clinicians should be aware that the discrimination of available nomograms decreases according to the time elapsed between diagnosis and surgery. The indication of ePLND should be carefully evaluated in men below the LNI cut-off who had a diagnosis more than 6 months before RP. This has important implications when considering the longer waiting lists related to the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Pellegrino
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
| | - Elio Mazzone
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Armando Stabile
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Jean Baptiste Beauval
- Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Toulouse University Hospital, Toulouse, France
| | - Giancarlo Marra
- Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Riccardo Campi
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Luca Afferi
- Klinik Für Urologie, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland
| | - Junlong Zhuang
- Department of Urology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China
| | - Gabriele Sorce
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Rosiello
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Barletta
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Simone Scuderi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Hongqian Guo
- Department of Urology, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Andrea Minervini
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy; Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Guillaume Ploussard
- La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France; Institut Universitaire du Cancer-Toulouse, Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Soldera Prostate Cancer Lab, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Pellegrino F, Stabile A, Mazzone E, Sorce G, Barletta F, De Angelis M, Brembilla G, Gandaglia G, De Cobelli F, Montorsi F, Briganti A. Does previous prostate surgery affect multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging accuracy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer? Results from a single institution series. Prostate 2022; 82:1170-1175. [PMID: 35538401 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24368] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2022] [Revised: 04/11/2022] [Accepted: 04/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant PCa (csPCa). However, the accuracy of this test in men that received a previous prostatic surgery is still controversial. We aimed at assessing the effect of previous prostatic surgery on the detection of csPCa in a tertiary referral center. METHOD We relied on a cohort of 311 men with a positive mpMRI (prostate imaging - reporting and data system [PI-RADS] ≥ 3) who underwent a targeted (TBx) plus concomitant systematic random biopsy (SBx) at a single tertiary referral center between 2017 and 2020. The study outcome was to compare the detection of csPCa (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4) between the two groups (no previous prostate surgery [Group 1] vs. previous prostate surgery [Group 2]). Multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA) was used to assess the relationship between previous prostate surgery and the detection of csPCa at TBx, after taking into account potential clinical confounders. RESULTS Overall, 24 (8%) patients received a previous prostate surgery before undergoing mpMRI. Median prostate-specific antigen density was 0.15 versus 0.08 ng/ml/cc, in Group 1 versus 2, respectively. The most frequent finding at mpMRI was in Group 1 versus 2, PI-RADS 4 (55%) versus PI-RADS 3 and 4 (42% each). The majority of patients were biopsy naïve in both Groups 1 (66%) and 2 (71%). The overall detection of csPCa in Group 1 versus 2 was 83% versus 75%, respectively. Differently, the detection of csPCa at TBx in Groups 1 versus 2 was 76% versus 71%, respectively. At MVA, previous prostate surgery (odds ratio: 0.65; p = 0.02) was significantly associated with lower csPCa detection at TBx, after accounting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION The presence of previous prostate surgery significantly decreases the accuracy of mpMRI in detecting csPCa. These results should be taken into account when assessing patients with a history of prostatic surgery and a suspicious lesion at mpMRI, to better select those who might avoid an unnecessary biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Pellegrino
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Armando Stabile
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Elio Mazzone
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Gabriele Sorce
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Barletta
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Mario De Angelis
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Brembilla
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco De Cobelli
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
He Y, Shen Q, Fu W, Wang H, Song G. Optimized grade group for reporting prostate cancer grade in systematic and MRI-targeted biopsies. Prostate 2022; 82:1125-1132. [PMID: 35538399 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24365] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2022] [Revised: 04/04/2022] [Accepted: 04/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To explore an optimized grade group (oGG) criterion from systematic biopsies (SB) and targeted biopsies (TB) and offer a better prediction of radical prostatectomy (RP) grade group (GG). METHODS Positive needles were collected from 146 patients who underwent SB + TB followed by RP. The grade was assigned for two different kinds of biopsies with five GG criteria: (1) global GG (gGG); (2) most common GG (most common GG from SB + TB, mGG); (3) highest GG (highest numerical GG from SB + TB, hGG); (4) largest volume/linear length cancer GG (defined as GG from the SB + TB with the largest length of cancer in a needle, lGG). These biopsy grades were compared (equivalence, upgrade, or downgrade) with the final grade of the RP lesion, using weighted κ coefficients; (5) Then the best agreement of the (2) (3) (4) grading scores from SB or TB was combined to introduce an oGG. RESULTS In this study, gGG showed generally poor agreement (47.2%) with RP GG (weighted κ: 0.43). Using the three criteria (mGG, hGG, and lGG) of SB, mGG had the best agreement (55.5%, weighted κ: 0.46), while hGG and lGG had a lower agreement (48.6% and 48.6%, weighted κ: 0.42 and 0.38). Using the three criteria (mGG, hGG and lGG) of TB: lGG had the best agreement (56.8%, weighted κ: 0.43), while mGG and hGG had lower agreement (50.0% and 49.3%, weighted κ: 0.40 and 0.40); Then oGG was generated (higher GG between mGG of SB and lGG of TB) and the agreement of oGG increased to 59.6% and weighted κ was 0.49. Additionally, oGG had a lower upgrade rate than gGG, while the downgrade rate remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS oGG showed better agreement with RP GG than gGG. oGG had a lower upgrade rate than gGG, while downgrade rate remained unchanged.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yang He
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Qi Shen
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Weixiao Fu
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - He Wang
- Department of Radiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Gang Song
- Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Sorce G, Flammia RS, Hoeh B, Chierigo F, Hohenhorst L, Panunzio A, Stabile A, Gandaglia G, Tian Z, Tilki D, Terrone C, Gallucci M, Chun FKH, Antonelli A, Saad F, Shariat SF, Montorsi F, Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI. Grade and stage misclassification in intermediate unfavorable-risk prostate cancer radiotherapy candidates. Prostate 2022; 82:1040-1050. [PMID: 35365851 PMCID: PMC9325037 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24349] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2021] [Revised: 02/20/2022] [Accepted: 03/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We tested for upgrading (Gleason grade group [GGG] ≥ 4) and/or upstaging to non-organ-confined stage ([NOC] ≥ pT3/pN1) in intermediate unfavorable-risk (IU) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy, since both change the considerations for dose and/or type of radiotherapy (RT) and duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). METHODS We relied on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (2010-2015). Proportions of (a) upgrading, (b) upstaging, or (c) upgrading and/or upstaging were tabulated and tested in multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS We identified 7269 IU PCa patients. Upgrading was recorded in 479 (6.6%) and upstaging in 2398 (33.0%), for a total of 2616 (36.0%) upgraded and/or upstaged patients, who no longer fulfilled the IU grade and stage definition. Prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, biopsy GGG, and percentage of positive cores, neither individually nor in multivariable logistic regression models, discriminated between upgraded and/or upstaged patients versus others. CONCLUSIONS IU PCa patients showed very high (36%) upgrading and/or upstaging proportion. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of those were upstaged to NOC. Conversely, very few were upgraded to GGG ≥ 4. In consequence, more than one-third of IU PCa patients treated with RT may be exposed to suboptimal dose and/or type of RT and to insufficient duration of ADT, since their true grade and stage corresponded to high-risk PCa definition, instead of IU PCa. Data about magnetic resonance imaging were not available but may potentially help with better stage discrimination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriele Sorce
- Department of Urology, Division of Experimental OncologyURI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montréal Health CenterMontréalQuébecCanada
| | - Rocco Simone Flammia
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montréal Health CenterMontréalQuébecCanada
- Department of Maternal‐Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I HospitalSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
| | - Benedikt Hoeh
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montréal Health CenterMontréalQuébecCanada
- Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany
| | - Francesco Chierigo
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montréal Health CenterMontréalQuébecCanada
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC)University of GenovaGenovaItaly
| | - Lukas Hohenhorst
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montréal Health CenterMontréalQuébecCanada
- Department of UrologyMartini‐Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg‐EppendorfHamburgGermany
| | - Andrea Panunzio
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montréal Health CenterMontréalQuébecCanada
- Department of UrologyUniversity of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di VeronaVeronaItaly
| | - Armando Stabile
- Department of Urology, Division of Experimental OncologyURI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Department of Urology, Division of Experimental OncologyURI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
| | - Zhe Tian
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montréal Health CenterMontréalQuébecCanada
| | - Derya Tilki
- Department of UrologyMartini‐Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg‐EppendorfHamburgGermany
- Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital Hamburg‐EppendorfHamburgGermany
- Department of UrologyKoc University HospitalInstanbulTurkey
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC)University of GenovaGenovaItaly
| | - Michele Gallucci
- Department of Maternal‐Child and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I HospitalSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
| | - Felix K. H. Chun
- Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany
| | - Alessandro Antonelli
- Department of UrologyUniversity of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di VeronaVeronaItaly
| | - Fred Saad
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montréal Health CenterMontréalQuébecCanada
| | - Shahrokh F. Shariat
- Departments of UrologyWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkNew YorkUSA
- Department of UrologyUniversity of Texas SouthwesternDallasTexasUSA
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of MedicineCharles UniversityPragaCzech Republic
- Department of Urology, Institute for Urology and Reproductive HealthI.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityMoscowRussia
- Division of Urology, Hourani Center for Applied Scientific ResearchAl‐Ahliyya Amman UniversityAmmanJordan
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer CenterMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Department of Urology, Division of Experimental OncologyURI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology, Division of Experimental OncologyURI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific InstituteMilanItaly
| | - Pierre I. Karakiewicz
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montréal Health CenterMontréalQuébecCanada
| |
Collapse
|