1
|
Hoeh B, Preisser F, Zattoni F, Kretschmer A, Westhofen T, Olivier J, Soeterik TFW, van den Bergh RCN, Mandel P, Graefen M, Tilki D. Risk of Biochemical Recurrence and Metastasis in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy After a 10-year Disease-free Interval. Eur Urol Oncol 2025; 8:372-379. [PMID: 39306583 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.08.008] [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: 06/27/2024] [Revised: 08/02/2024] [Accepted: 08/27/2024] [Indexed: 03/24/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is used to follow up prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). Research on PSA thresholds for identifying PCa patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) who are at a higher risk of progression yielded inconclusive results. This study aims to investigate the risk of late BCR in PCa patients treated with RP and long postoperative (120 mo) undetectable PSA follow-up, and to identify prognostic factors for late BCR within this patient cohort. METHODS PCa patients treated with curative RP (1992-2012) and free of BCR during the first 120 mo following RP were retrospectively identified within five European tertiary centers; BCR was defined as two consecutive PSA values of ≥0.2 ng/ml. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models tested for an association between BCR and patient or tumor characteristics. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS The study cohort consisted of 4639 patients, of whom 243 (5.2%) developed BCR at a medium follow-up of 147 mo. Of those with BCR, 23 (9.5%) subsequently developed metastatic progression. In Kaplan-Meier models, BCR-free survival differed according to advanced tumor status. In multivariable Cox regression models, pT stage (pT3a: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46; pT3b: HR: 2.42), pathological Gleason score (pGS 3 + 4: HR: 1.71; pGS ≥4 + 3: HR: 2.47), surgical margin (R1/Rx: HR: 1.72), and pNx stage (pNx: HR: 0.72) represented independent predictors for BCR (all p < 0.05). Conversely, age, PSA at diagnosis, and year of surgery failed to achieve independent predictor status for BCR. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Among PCa patients with an uneventful follow-up of at least 10 yr after RP, still one in 20 patients subsequently develop late BCR. Nevertheless, late BCR and subsequent progression to metastasis (0.3%) rates in patients with pT2 stage and pGS ≤3 + 4 were strikingly low, implicating that abandoning follow-up beyond an uneventful period of 10 yr is justifiable within this cohort of patients. PATIENT SUMMARY In this study, prostate cancer patients treated with a radical prostatectomy and at least 10 yr of uneventful prostate-specific antigen testing were identified within five European centers. Relying on these patients, the rate of subsequent late biochemical recurrence was calculated and risk factors were identified for biochemical recurrence following 10 yr of uneventful prostate-specific antigen testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benedikt Hoeh
- Department of Urology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Felix Preisser
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Fabio Zattoni
- Urologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy; Department of Medicine - DIMED, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Alexander Kretschmer
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Munich, Campus Großhadern, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany
| | - Thilo Westhofen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Munich, Campus Großhadern, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Timo F W Soeterik
- Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Philipp Mandel
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Derya Tilki
- 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.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Yusim I, Mazor E, Frumkin E, Hefer B, Li S, Novack V, Mabjeesh NJ. The number of involved regions by prostate adenocarcinoma predicts histopathology concordance between radical prostatectomy specimens and MRI/ultrasound-fusion targeted prostate biopsy. Front Oncol 2024; 14:1496479. [PMID: 39723377 PMCID: PMC11668676 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1496479] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2024] [Accepted: 11/22/2024] [Indexed: 12/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Introduction The prostate biopsy (PB) results should be concordant with prostatectomy histopathology to avoid overestimating or underestimating the disease, leading to inappropriate or undertreatment of prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Since the introduction of multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) in the diagnostic pathway of PCa, most studies have shown that MRI/Ultrasound fusion-guided (MRI-fusion) PB improves concordance with histopathology of radical prostatectomy specimens. This study aimed to evaluate the improvement in concordance of prostatectomy specimens with PB histopathology obtained using the MRI-fusion approach compared with the 12-core TRUS-Bx and to identify the variables influencing this. Patients and methods The study included 218 men who were diagnosed with PCa by PB and underwent radical prostatectomy between 2016 and 2023. The patients were grouped based on the biopsy method: 115 underwent TRUS-Bx, and 103 underwent MRI-fusion PB. The histopathological grading of these biopsy approaches was compared with that of radical prostatectomy specimens. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of various criteria on histopathological concordance. Results In patients with unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk PCa, MRI-fusion PB showed significantly better concordance with prostatectomy histopathology than TRUS-Bx (73.1% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.018). MRI-fusion PB had a significantly lower downgrading of prostatectomy histopathology than TRUS-Bx in all grade categories. The number of cancer-involved regions of the prostate is an independent predictor for concordance (OR = 1.24, 95%CI = 1.04-1.52, p = 0.02) and downgrading (OR = 0.46, 95%CI = 0.24-0.83, p = 0.01). Conclusions Using an MRI-fusion PB improves histopathological concordance in patients with unfavorable intermediate and high-risk PCa. It reduces the downgrading rate of prostatectomy histopathology compared with TRUS-Bx in all grade categories. The number of cancer-involved regions is an independent predictor of the concordance between biopsy and final histopathology after prostatectomy and post-prostatectomy histopathology downgrading. Our findings could assist in selecting PCa patients for AS and focal treatment based on the histopathology obtained from the MRI-fusion PB.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Igor Yusim
- Department of Urology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Elad Mazor
- Department of Urology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Einat Frumkin
- Soroka Clinical Research Center, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Ben Hefer
- Department of Urology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Sveta Li
- Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Victor Novack
- Soroka Clinical Research Center, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
| | - Nicola J. Mabjeesh
- Department of Urology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bucher AM, Egger J, Dietz J, Strecker R, Hilbert T, Frodl E, Wenzel M, Penzkofer T, Hamm B, Chun FK, Vogl T, Kleesiek J, Beeres M. Value of MRI - T2 Mapping to Differentiate Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. JOURNAL OF IMAGING INFORMATICS IN MEDICINE 2024; 37:3304-3315. [PMID: 38926263 PMCID: PMC11612117 DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01150-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2023] [Revised: 05/21/2024] [Accepted: 05/23/2024] [Indexed: 06/28/2024]
Abstract
Standardized reporting of multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) is widespread and follows international standards (Pi-RADS). However, quantitative measurements from mpMRI are not widely comparable. Although T2 mapping sequences can provide repeatable quantitative image measurements and extract reliable imaging biomarkers from mpMRI, they are often time-consuming. We therefore investigated the value of quantitative measurements on a highly accelerated T2 mapping sequence, in order to establish a threshold to differentiate benign from malignant lesions. For this purpose, we evaluated a novel, highly accelerated T2 mapping research sequence that enables high-resolution image acquisition with short acquisition times in everyday clinical practice. In this retrospective single-center study, we included 54 patients with clinically indicated MRI of the prostate and biopsy-confirmed carcinoma (n = 37) or exclusion of carcinoma (n = 17). All patients had received a standard of care biopsy of the prostate, results of which were used to confirm or exclude presence of malignant lesions. We used the linear mixed-effects model-fit by REML to determine the difference between mean values of cancerous tissue and healthy tissue. We found good differentiation between malignant lesions and normal appearing tissue in the peripheral zone based on the mean T2 value. Specifically, the mean T2 value for tissue without malignant lesions was (151.7 ms [95% CI: 146.9-156.5 ms] compared to 80.9 ms for malignant lesions [95% CI: 67.9-79.1 ms]; p < 0.001). Based on this assessment, a limit of 109.2 ms is suggested. Aditionally, a significant correlation was observed between T2 values of the peripheral zone and PI-RADS scores (p = 0.0194). However, no correlation was found between the Gleason Score and the T2 relaxation time. Using REML, we found a difference of -82.7 ms in mean values between cancerous tissue and healthy tissue. We established a cut-off-value of 109.2 ms to accurately differentiate between malignant and non-malignant prostate regions. The addition of T2 mapping sequences to routine imaging could benefit automated lesion detection and facilitate contrast-free multiparametric MRI of the prostate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas Michael Bucher
- Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Jan Egger
- Institute for AI in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Girardetstraße 2, 45131, Essen, Germany.
| | - Julia Dietz
- Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Ralph Strecker
- Siemens Healthineers AG, (EMEA Scientific Partnerships), Henkestraße 127, 91052, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Tom Hilbert
- Advanced Clinical Imaging Technology, Siemens Healthineers International AG, EPFL, QI E, 1015, Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
- Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
- LTS5, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Eric Frodl
- Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, Goethe University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany, Theodor-Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Tobias Penzkofer
- Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany
- Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Bernd Hamm
- Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany
| | - Felix Kh Chun
- Department of Urology, Goethe University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany, Theodor-Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Thomas Vogl
- Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Jens Kleesiek
- Institute for AI in Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Girardetstraße 2, 45131, Essen, Germany
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Otto-Hahn-Straße 4, 44227, Dortmund, Germany
- Cancer Research Center Cologne Essen (CCCE), West German Cancer Center Essen (WTZ), 45122, Essen, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Partner site University Hospital Essen, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 45122, Essen, Germany
- Medical Faculty, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45122, Essen, Germany
| | - Martin Beeres
- Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
- Departement of Neuroradiology, University-Hospital of Giessen and Marburg Campus Marburg, Baldingerstraße 1, 35043, Marburg, Germany
| |
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
|
Heetman JG, Lavalaye J, Polm PD, Soeterik TFW, Wever L, Paulino Pereira LJ, van der Hoeven EJRJ, van Melick HHE, van den Bergh RCN. Gallium-68 Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer Trial (PASPoRT). Eur Urol Oncol 2024; 7:204-210. [PMID: 37296065 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Revised: 04/24/2023] [Accepted: 05/11/2023] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of clinical parameters, including prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to decide between active surveillance (AS) and active therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) leads to imperfect selection. Additional prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging may improve risk stratification. OBJECTIVE To study risk stratification and patient selection for AS with the addition of PSMA PET/CT to standard practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A single-centre prospective cohort study (NL69880.100.19) enrolled patients recently diagnosed with PCa who started AS. At diagnosis, all participants had undergone prebiopsy MRI and targeted biopsy for visualised lesions. Patients underwent an additional [68Ga]-PSMA PET/CT and targeted biopsy of all PSMA lesions with a maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) of ≥4 not covered by previous biopsies. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary outcome was the number needed to scan (NNS) to detect one patient with upgrading. The study was powered to detect an NNS of 10. Regarding secondary outcomes, univariate logistic regressions analyses were performed on all patients and on the patients who received additional PSMA targeted biopsies on the likelihood of upgrading. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 141 patients were included. Additional PSMA targeted biopsies were performed in 45 (32%) patients. In 13 (9%) patients, upgrading was detected: nine grade group (GG) 2, two GG 3, one GG 4, and one GG 5. The NNS was 11 (95% confidence interval 6-18). Of all participants, PSMA PET/CT and targeted biopsies yielded upgrading most frequently in patients with negative MRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] 1-2). Of patients who received additional PSMA targeted biopsies, upgrading was most frequently found in those with higher prostate-specific antigen density and negative MRI. Limitations included the lack of comparison with standard repeat biopsy, no central review of MRI, and possibility of biopsy sampling error. CONCLUSIONS PSMA PET/CT can further improve PCa risk stratification and selection for AS patients diagnosed after MRI and targeted biopsies. PATIENT SUMMARY Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography and additional targeted prostate biopsies can identify more aggressive prostate cancer cases previously missed in patients recently started with expectant management for favourable-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joris G Heetman
- Department of Urology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht-Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
| | - Jules Lavalaye
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht-Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Pepijn D Polm
- Department of Urology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht-Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Timo F W Soeterik
- Department of Urology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht-Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Lieke Wever
- Department of Urology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht-Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Harm H E van Melick
- Department of Urology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Utrecht-Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Weinstein IC, Wu X, Hill A, Brennan D, Omil-Lima D, Basourakos S, Brant A, Lewicki P, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Spratt D, Bittencourt LK, Scherr D, Zaorsky NG, Nagar H, Hu J, Barbieri C, Ponsky L, Vickers AJ, Shoag JE. Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeting on Pathologic Upgrading and Downgrading at Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 2023:S2588-9311(23)00080-9. [PMID: 37236832 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2022] [Revised: 03/31/2023] [Accepted: 04/17/2023] [Indexed: 05/28/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT The evidence supporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting for biopsy is nearly exclusively based on biopsy pathologic outcomes. This is problematic, as targeting likely allows preferential identification of small high-grade areas of questionable oncologic significance, raising the likelihood of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. OBJECTIVE To estimate the impact of MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsies on radical prostatectomy (RP) grade group concordance. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION PubMed MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched from July 2018 to January 2022. Studies that conducted systematic and MRI-targeted prostate biopsies and compared biopsy results with pathology after RP were included. We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether pathologic upgrading and downgrading were influenced by biopsy type and a net-benefit analysis using pooled risk difference estimates. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Both targeted only and combined biopsies were less likely to result in upgrading (odds ratio [OR] vs systematic of 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.77, p < 0.001, and 0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.55, p < 0.001), respectively). Targeted only and combined biopsies increased the odds of downgrading (1.24 (95% CI 1.05-1.46), p = 0.012, and 1.96 (95% CI 1.68-2.27, p < 0.001) compared with systematic biopsies, respectively. The net benefit of targeted and combined biopsies is 8 and 7 per 100 if harms of up- and downgrading are considered equal, but 7 and -1 per 100 if the harm of downgrading is considered twice that of upgrading. CONCLUSIONS The addition of MRI-targeting results in lower rates of upgrading as compared to systematic biopsy at RP (27% vs 42%). However, combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies are associated with more downgrading at RP (19% v 11% for combined vs systematic). Strong heterogeneity suggests further research into factors that influence the rates of up- and downgrading and that distinguishes clinically relevant from irrelevant grade changes is needed. Until then, the benefits and harms of combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies cannot be fully assessed. PATIENT SUMMARY We reviewed the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies to predict cancer grade at prostatectomy. We found that combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies result in more cancers being downgraded than systematic biopsies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ilon C Weinstein
- Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Xian Wu
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Alexander Hill
- Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Donald Brennan
- Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Danly Omil-Lima
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Spyridon Basourakos
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Aaron Brant
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Patrick Lewicki
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Daniel Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt
- Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Doug Scherr
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Nicholas G Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Himanshu Nagar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jim Hu
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Christopher Barbieri
- Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Lee Ponsky
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Andrew J Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jonathan E Shoag
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Urology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Cano Garcia C, Wenzel M, Piccinelli ML, Hoeh B, Landmann L, Tian Z, Humke C, Incesu RB, Köllermann J, Wild PJ, Würnschimmel C, Graefen M, Tilki D, Karakiewicz PI, Kluth LA, Chun FKH, Mandel P. External Tertiary-Care-Hospital Validation of the Epidemiological SEER-Based Nomogram Predicting Downgrading in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13:diagnostics13091614. [PMID: 37175005 PMCID: PMC10178748 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13091614] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2023] [Revised: 04/06/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/15/2023] Open
Abstract
We aimed to externally validate the SEER-based nomogram used to predict downgrading in biopsied high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) in a contemporary European tertiary-care-hospital cohort. We relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify biopsied high-risk prostate cancer patients in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) who underwent RP between January 2014 and December 2022. The model's downgrading performance was evaluated using accuracy and calibration. The net benefit of the nomogram was tested with decision-curve analyses. Overall, 241 biopsied high-risk prostate cancer patients were identified. In total, 51% were downgraded at RP. Moreover, of the 99 patients with a biopsy Gleason pattern of 5, 43% were significantly downgraded to RP Gleason pattern ≤ 4 + 4. The nomogram predicted the downgrading with 72% accuracy. A high level of agreement between the predicted and observed downgrading rates was observed. In the prediction of significant downgrading from a biopsy Gleason pattern of 5 to a RP Gleason pattern ≤ 4 + 4, the accuracy was 71%. Deviations from the ideal predictions were noted for predicted probabilities between 30% and 50%, where the nomogram overestimated the observed rate of significant downgrading. This external validation of the SEER-based nomogram confirmed its ability to predict the downgrading of biopsy high-risk prostate cancer patients and its accurate use for patient counseling in high-volume RP centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristina Cano Garcia
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada
| | - Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Mattia Luca Piccinelli
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, Istituto Di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), 20141 Milan, Italy
| | - Benedikt Hoeh
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Lea Landmann
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada
| | - Clara Humke
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Reha-Baris Incesu
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
| | - Jens Köllermann
- Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Peter J Wild
- Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- LOEWE Center Frankfurt Cancer Institute (FCI), Goethe University Frankfurt, 60439 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | | | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, 34010 Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, 39120 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Flammia RS, Hoeh B, Hohenhorst L, Sorce G, Chierigo F, Panunzio A, Tian Z, Saad F, Leonardo C, Briganti A, Antonelli A, Terrone C, Shariat SF, Anceschi U, Graefen M, Chun FKH, Montorsi F, Gallucci M, Karakiewicz PI. Adverse upgrading and/or upstaging in contemporary low-risk prostate cancer patients. Int Urol Nephrol 2022; 54:2521-2528. [PMID: 35838831 PMCID: PMC9463257 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-022-03250-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2022] [Accepted: 06/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Upgrading and/or upstaging in low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients may represent an indication for active treatment instead of active surveillance (AS). We addressed contemporary upgrading and/or upstaging rates in a large population based-cohort of low-risk PCa patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS Whitin the SEER database (2010-2015), NCCN low-risk PCa patients were identified across management modalities: radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT) and non-local treatment (NLT). In RP patients, upgrading and/or upstaging rates were assessed in logistic regression models. RESULTS Overall, of 27,901 low-risk PCa patients, 38% underwent RP vs 28% RT vs 34% NLT. RP patients were the youngest and harbored the highest percentage of positive cores and a higher rate of cT2a than NLT. At RP, 46.2% were upgraded to GGG ≥ 2, 6.0% to GGG ≥ 3 and 10.5% harbored nonorgan-confined stage (NOC, pT3-4 or pN1). Of NOC patients, 1.6% harbored GGG ≥ 3, 6.3% harbored GGG2 and 2.6% harbored GGG1. Of pT2 patients, 4.4% harbored GGG ≥ 3, 33.9% harbored GGG2 and 51.3% harbored GGG1. Age, PSA, percentage of positive cores and number of positive cores independently predicted the presence of NOC and/or GGG ≥ 3, but with low accuracy (63.9%). CONCLUSIONS In low-risk PCa, critical changes between tumor grade and stage at biopsy vs RP may be expected in very few patients: NOC with GGG ≥ 3 in 1.6% and NOC with GGG2 in 6.3%. Other patients with upgrading and/or upstaging combinations will invariably harbor either pT2 or GGG1 that far less critically affect PCa prognosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rocco S Flammia
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
| | - Benedikt Hoeh
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Lukas Hohenhorst
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Gabriele Sorce
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Chierigo
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Andrea Panunzio
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Costantino Leonardo
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA
- Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Umberto Anceschi
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Rome, Italy
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt Am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Michele Gallucci
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Wenzel M, Hoeh B, Mandel P, Chun FKH. Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Without Histological Proof in the Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Era: The Jury Is Still Out. EUR UROL SUPPL 2022; 45:50-51. [PMID: 36199620 PMCID: PMC9527627 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Corresponding author. Department of Urology, Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Tel. +49 69 630183147; Fax: +49 69 630180069.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Treatment patterns and rates of upgrading and upstaging in prostate cancer patients with single GGG1 positive biopsy core. Urol Oncol 2022; 40:407.e9-407.e19. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.06.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2021] [Revised: 03/29/2022] [Accepted: 06/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
11
|
Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Chierigo F, Flammia RS, Tian Z, Shariat SF, Gallucci M, Terrone C, Saad F, Tilki D, Graefen M, Becker A, Kluth LA, Mandel P, Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI. Nomogram Predicting Downgrading in National Comprehensive Cancer Network High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 2022; 8:1133-1140. [PMID: 34334344 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2021.07.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2021] [Revised: 06/25/2021] [Accepted: 07/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Some high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients may show more favorable Gleason pattern at radical prostatectomy (RP) than at biopsy. OBJECTIVE To test whether downgrading could be predicted accurately. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2010-2016), 6690 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high-risk PCa patients were identified. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES We randomly split the overall cohort between development and validation cohorts (both n = 3345, 50%). Multivariable logistic regression models used biopsy Gleason, prostate-specific antigen, number of positive prostate biopsy cores, and cT stage to predict downgrading. Accuracy, calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA) tested the model in the external validation cohort. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 6690 patients, 50.3% were downgraded at RP, and of 2315 patients with any biopsy pattern 5, 44.1% were downgraded to RP Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4. Downgrading rates were highest in biopsy Gleason pattern 5 + 5 (84.1%) and lowest in 3 + 4 (4.0%). In the validation cohort, the logistic regression model-derived nomogram predicted downgrading with 71.0% accuracy, with marginal departures (±3.3%) from ideal predictions in calibration. In DCA, a net benefit throughout all threshold probabilities was recorded, relative to treat-all or treat-none strategies and an algorithm based on an average downgrading rate of 50.3%. All steps were repeated in the subgroup with any biopsy Gleason pattern 5, to predict RP Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4. Here, a second nomogram (n = 2315) yielded 68.0% accuracy, maximal departures from ideal prediction of ±5.7%, and virtually the same DCA pattern as the main nomogram. CONCLUSIONS Downgrading affects half of all high-risk PCa patients. Its presence may be predicted accurately and may help with better treatment planning. PATIENT SUMMARY Downgrading occurs in every second high-risk prostate cancer patients. The nomograms developed by us can predict these probabilities accurately.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
| | - Christoph Würnschimmel
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Francesco Chierigo
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Rocco Simone Flammia
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia; Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Michele Gallucci
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Andreas Becker
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Lophatananon A, Byrne MHV, Barrett T, Warren A, Muir K, Dokubo I, Georgiades F, Sheba M, Bibby L, Gnanapragasam VJ. Assessing the impact of MRI based diagnostics on pre-treatment disease classification and prognostic model performance in men diagnosed with new prostate cancer from an unscreened population. BMC Cancer 2022; 22:878. [PMID: 35953766 PMCID: PMC9367076 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09955-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2022] [Accepted: 07/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Pre-treatment risk and prognostic groups are the cornerstone for deciding management in non-metastatic prostate cancer. All however, were developed in the pre-MRI era. Here we compared categorisation of cancers using either only clinical parameters or with MRI enhanced information in men referred for suspected prostate cancer from an unscreened population. Patient and methods Data from men referred from primary care to our diagnostic service and with both clinical (digital rectal examination [DRE] and systematic biopsies) and MRI enhanced attributes (MRI stage and combined systematic/targeted biopsies) were used for this study. Clinical vs MRI data were contrasted for clinico-pathological and risk group re-distribution using the European Association of Urology (EAU), American Urological Association (AUA) and UK National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE) Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) models. Differences were retrofitted to a population cohort with long-term prostate cancer mortality (PCM) outcomes to simulate impact on model performance. We further contrasted individualised overall survival (OS) predictions using the Predict Prostate algorithm. Results Data from 370 men were included (median age 66y). Pre-biopsy MRI stage reassignments occurred in 7.8% (versus DRE). Image-guided biopsies increased Grade Group 2 and ≥ Grade Group 3 assignments in 2.7% and 2.9% respectively. The main change in risk groups was more high-risk cancers (6.2% increase in the EAU and AUA system, 4.3% increase in CPG4 and 1.9% CPG5). When extrapolated to a historical population-based cohort (n = 10,139) the redistribution resulted in generally lower concordance indices for PCM. The 5-tier NICE-CPG system outperformed the 4-tier AUA and 3-tier EAU models (C Index 0.70 versus 0.65 and 0.64). Using an individualised prognostic model, changes in predicted OS were small (median difference 1% and 2% at 10- and 15-years’ respectively). Similarly, estimated treatment survival benefit changes were minimal (1% at both 10- and 15-years’ time frame). Conclusion MRI guided diagnostics does change pre-treatment risk groups assignments but the overall prognostic impact appears modest in men referred from unscreened populations. Particularly, when using more granular tiers or individualised prognostic models. Existing risk and prognostic models can continue to be used to counsel men about treatment option until long term survival outcomes are available.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09955-w.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Artitaya Lophatananon
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Matthew H V Byrne
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Tristan Barrett
- Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Anne Warren
- Department of Pathology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Kenneth Muir
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Ibifuro Dokubo
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Fanos Georgiades
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.,Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mostafa Sheba
- Kasr Al Any School of Medicine, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
| | - Lisa Bibby
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Vincent J Gnanapragasam
- Department of Urology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. .,Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. .,Cambridge Urology Translational Research and Clinical Trials Office, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hoeh B, Flammia RS, Hohenhorst L, Sorce G, Chierigo F, Tian Z, Saad F, Gallucci M, Briganti A, Terrone C, Shariat SF, Graefen M, Tilki D, Kluth LA, Mandel P, Becker A, Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI. Non-organ confined stage and upgrading rates in exclusive PSA high-risk prostate cancer patients. Prostate 2022; 82:687-694. [PMID: 35188982 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2021] [Revised: 01/12/2022] [Accepted: 01/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The pathological stage of prostate cancer with high-risk prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but otherwise favorable and/or intermediate risk characteristics (clinical T-stage, Gleason Grade group at biopsy [B-GGG]) is unknown. We hypothesized that a considerable proportion of such patients will exhibit clinically meaningful GGG upgrading or non-organ confined (NOC) stage at radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2015) we identified RP-patients with cT1c-stage and B-GGG1, B-GGG2, or B-GGG3 and PSA 20-50 ng/ml. Rates of GGG4 or GGG5 and/or rates of NOC stage (≥ pT3 and/or pN1) were analyzed. Subsequently, separate univariable and multivariable logistic regression models tested for predictors of NOC stage and upgrading at RP. RESULTS Of 486 assessable patients, 134 (28%) exhibited B-GGG1, 209 (43%) B-GGG2, and 143 (29%) B-GGG3, respectively. The overall upgrading and NOC rates were 11% and 51% for a combined rate of upgrading and/or NOC stage of 53%. In multivariable logistic regression models predicting upgrading, only B-GGG3 was an independent predictor (odds ratio [OR]: 5.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.21-14.19; p < 0.001). Conversely, 33%-66% (OR: 2.36; 95% CI: 1.42-3.95; p = 0.001) and >66% of positive biopsy cores (OR: 4.85; 95% CI: 2.84-8.42; p < 0.001), as well as B-GGG2 and B-GGG3 were independent predictors for NOC stage (all p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In cT1c-stage patients with high-risk PSA baseline, but low- to intermediate risk B-GGG, the rate of upgrading to GGG4 or GGG5 is low (11%). However, NOC stage is found in the majority (51%) and can be independently predicted with percentage of positive cores at biopsy and B-GGG.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benedikt Hoeh
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Department of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada
| | - Rocco S Flammia
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Department of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Lukas Hohenhorst
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Department of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Gabriele Sorce
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Department of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada
- Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Chierigo
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Department of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Department of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Department of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada
| | - Michele Gallucci
- Department of Maternal-Child and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Integrated Sciences (DISC), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, New York, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
- Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Derya Tilki
- 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
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Andreas Becker
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Department of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Zhuang J, Kan Y, Wang Y, Marquis A, Qiu X, Oderda M, Huang H, Gatti M, Zhang F, Gontero P, Xu L, Calleris G, Fu Y, Zhang B, Marra G, Guo H. Machine Learning-Based Prediction of Pathological Upgrade From Combined Transperineal Systematic and MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy to Final Pathology: A Multicenter Retrospective Study. Front Oncol 2022; 12:785684. [PMID: 35463339 PMCID: PMC9021959 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.785684] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2021] [Accepted: 03/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to evaluate the pathological concordance from combined systematic and MRI-targeted prostate biopsy to final pathology and to verify the effectiveness of a machine learning-based model with targeted biopsy (TB) features in predicting pathological upgrade. Materials and Methods All patients in this study underwent prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), transperineal systematic plus transperineal targeted prostate biopsy under local anesthesia, and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer (PCa) sequentially from October 2016 to February 2020 in two referral centers. For cores with cancer, grade group (GG) and Gleason score were determined by using the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) guidelines. Four supervised machine learning methods were employed, including two base classifiers and two ensemble learning-based classifiers. In all classifiers, the training set was 395 of 565 (70%) patients, and the test set was the remaining 170 patients. The prediction performance of each model was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The Gini index was used to evaluate the importance of all features and to figure out the most contributed features. A nomogram was established to visually predict the risk of upgrading. Predicted probability was a prevalence rate calculated by a proposed nomogram. Results A total of 515 patients were included in our cohort. The combined biopsy had a better concordance of postoperative histopathology than a systematic biopsy (SB) only (48.15% vs. 40.19%, p = 0.012). The combined biopsy could significantly reduce the upgrading rate of postoperative pathology, in comparison to SB only (23.30% vs. 39.61%, p < 0.0001) or TB only (23.30% vs. 40.19%, p < 0.0001). The most common pathological upgrade occurred in ISUP GG1 and GG2, accounting for 53.28% and 20.42%, respectively. All machine learning methods had satisfactory predictive efficacy. The overall accuracy was 0.703, 0.768, 0.794, and 0.761 for logistic regression, random forest, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and support vector machine, respectively. TB-related features were among the most contributed features of a prediction model for upgrade prediction. Conclusion The combined effect of SB plus TB led to a better pathological concordance rate and less upgrading from biopsy to RP. Machine learning models with features of TB to predict PCa GG upgrading have a satisfactory predictive efficacy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Junlong Zhuang
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.,Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - Yansheng Kan
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - Yuwen Wang
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.,Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.,Medical School of Southeast University, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing, China
| | - Alessandro Marquis
- Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Xuefeng Qiu
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.,Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - Marco Oderda
- Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Haifeng Huang
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.,Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - Marco Gatti
- Department of Radiology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Fan Zhang
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.,Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Linfeng Xu
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.,Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - Giorgio Calleris
- Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Yao Fu
- Department of Pathology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - Bing Zhang
- Department of Radiology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| | - Giancarlo Marra
- Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Città della Salute e della Scienza and University of Turin, Turin, Italy.,Department of Urology and Clinical Research Group on Predictive Onco-Urology, APHP, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
| | - Hongqian Guo
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.,Institute of Urology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hoeh B, Flammia R, Hohenhorst L, Sorce G, Chierigo F, Tian Z, Saad F, Gallucci M, Briganti A, Terrone C, Shariat SF, Graefen M, Tilki D, Kluth LA, Mandel P, Chun FK, Karakiewicz PI. Up- and downgrading in single intermediate-risk positive biopsy core prostate cancer. Prostate Int 2022; 10:21-27. [PMID: 35261911 PMCID: PMC8866049 DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2022.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2021] [Revised: 01/10/2022] [Accepted: 01/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Up- and/or downgrading rates in single intermediate-risk positive biopsy core are unknown. Methods We identified single intermediate-risk (Gleason grade group (GGG) 2/GGG3) positive biopsy core prostate cancer patients (≤ cT2c and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL) within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (2010–2015). Subsequently, separate uni- and multivariable logistic regression models tested for independent predictors of up- and downgrading. Results Of 1,328 assessable patients with single core positive intermediate-risk prostate cancer at biopsy, 972 (73%) harbored GGG2 versus 356 (27%) harbored GGG3. Median PSA (5.5 vs 5.7; p = 0.3), median age (62 vs 63 years; p = 0.07) and cT1-stage (77 vs 75%; p = 0.3) did not differ between GGG2 and GGG3 patients. Of individuals with single GGG2 positive biopsy core, 191 (20%) showed downgrading to GGG1 versus 35 (4%) upgrading to GGG4 or GGG5 at RP. Of individuals with single GGG3 positive biopsy core, 36 (10%) showed downgrading to GGG1 versus 42 (12%) significant upgrading to GGG4 or GGG5 at RP. In multivariable logistic regression models, elevated PSA (10–20 ng/mL) was an independent predictor of upgrading to GGG4/GGG5 in single GGG3 positive biopsy core patients (OR:2.89; 95%-CI: 1.31–6.11; p = 0.007). Conclusion In single GGG2 positive biopsy core patients, downgrading was four times more often recorded compared to upgrading. Conversely, in single GGG3 positive biopsy core patients, up- and downgrading rates were comparable and should be expected in one out of ten patients.
Collapse
|