Risk of Upgrading from Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Pathology—Does Saturation Biopsy of Index Lesion during Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Help?

No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Apr 2018Risk of Upgrading from Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Pathology—Does Saturation Biopsy of Index Lesion during Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Help? Brian P. Calio, Abhinav Sidana, Dordaneh Sugano, Sonia Gaur, Mahir Maruf, Amit L. Jain, Maria J. Merino, Peter L. Choyke, Bradford J. Wood, Peter A. Pinto, and Baris Turkbey Brian P. CalioBrian P. Calio Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland Equal study contribution. More articles by this author , Abhinav SidanaAbhinav Sidana Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio Equal study contribution. More articles by this author , Dordaneh SuganoDordaneh Sugano Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author , Sonia GaurSonia Gaur Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author , Mahir MarufMahir Maruf Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author , Amit L. JainAmit L. Jain Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author , Maria J. MerinoMaria J. Merino Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author , Peter L. ChoykePeter L. Choyke Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author , Bradford J. WoodBradford J. Wood Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland Financial interest and/or other relationship with Philips. More articles by this author , Peter A. PintoPeter A. Pinto Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author , and Baris TurkbeyBaris Turkbey Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.048AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We sought to determine whether saturation of the index lesion during magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy would decrease the rate of pathological upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: We analyzed a prospectively maintained, single institution database for patients who underwent fusion and systematic biopsy followed by radical prostatectomy in 2010 to 2016. Index lesion was defined as the lesion with largest diameter on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. In patients with a saturated index lesion transrectal fusion biopsy targets were obtained at 6 mm intervals along the long axis of the index lesion. In patients with a nonsaturated index lesion only 1 target was obtained from the lesion. Gleason 6, 7 and 8-10 were defined as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. Results: Included in the study were 208 consecutive patients, including 86 with a saturated and 122 with a nonsaturated lesion. Median patient age was 62.0 years (IQR 10.0) and median prostate specific antigen was 7.1 ng/ml (IQR 8.0). The median number of biopsy cores per index lesion was higher in the saturated lesion group (4 vs 2, p <0.001). The risk category upgrade rate from systematic only, fusion only, and combined fusion and systematic biopsy results to prostatectomy was 40.9%, 23.6% and 13.8%, respectively. The risk category upgrade from combined fusion and systematic biopsy results was lower in the saturated than in the nonsaturated lesion group (7% vs 18%, p = 0.021). There was no difference in the upgrade rate based on systematic biopsy between the 2 groups. However, fusion biopsy results were significantly less upgraded in the saturated lesion group (Gleason upgrade 20.9% vs 36.9%, p = 0.014 and risk category upgrade 14% vs 30.3%, p = 0.006). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that saturation of the index lesion significantly decreases the risk of upgrading on radical prostatectomy by minimizing the impact of tumor heterogeneity. References 1 : Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int2009; 103: 1647. Google Scholar 2 : Biopsy Gleason score: how does it correlate with the final pathological diagnosis in prostate cancer?. Br J Urol1997; 79: 615. Google Scholar 3 : Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol2000; 163: 158. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Is an initial saturation prostate biopsy scheme better than an extended scheme for detection of prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol2013; 63: 1031. Google Scholar 5 : Saturation biopsy improves preoperative Gleason scoring of prostate cancer. Pathol Res Pract2009; 205: 259. Google Scholar 6 : Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol2013; 63: 214. Google Scholar 7 : Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA2015; 313: 390. Google Scholar 8 : Technique for a hybrid system of real-time transrectal ultrasound with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in the guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Int J Urol2010; 17: 890. Google Scholar 9 : MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol2013; 23: 43. Google Scholar 10 : Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy—prospective multicenter study. Radiology2013; 268: 461. Google Scholar 11 : Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over detection through improved risk stratification. J Urol2015; 194: 1601. Link, Google Scholar 12 : Changes in prostate cancer detection rate of MRI-TRUS fusion vs systematic biopsy over time: evidence of a learning curve. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis2017; 20: 436. Google Scholar 13 : MRI-targeted biopsy: is systematic biopsy obsolete?. Can J Urol2017; 24: 8876. Google Scholar 14 : PI-RADSv2: how we do it. J Magn Reson Imaging2017; 46: 11. Google Scholar 15 : Missing the mark: prostate cancer upgrading by systematic biopsy over magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol2017; 197: 327. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Fully automated prostate segmentation on MRI: comparison with manual segmentation methods and specimen volumes. AJR Am J Roentgenol2013; 201: W720. Google Scholar 17 : Standard and saturation transrectal prostate biopsy techniques are equally accurate among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates. Int J Urol2013; 20: 860. Google Scholar 18 : Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol2006; 175: 485. Link, Google Scholar 19 : When to biopsy and when to stop biopsying. Urol Clin North Am2003; 30: 253. Google Scholar 20 : Transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of prostate cancer: effective treatment requiring accurate imaging. Eur J Radiol2007; 63: 317. Google Scholar 21 : Percutaneous MR-guided cryoablation of prostate cancer: initial experience. Eur Radiol2012; 22: 1829. Google Scholar 22 : Focal or subtotal therapy for early stage prostate cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol2007; 8: 165. Google Scholar 23 : Histological grade heterogeneity in multifocal prostate cancer. Biological and clinical implications. J Pathol1996; 180: 295. Google Scholar 24 : Multiparametric magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: number and spatial distribution of cores for better index tumor detection and characterization. J Urol2017; 198: 58. Link, Google Scholar 25 : Targeted prostate biopsy Gleason score heterogeneity and implications for risk stratification. Am J Clin Oncol2016; 10.1097/COC.0000000000000308. Crossref, Google Scholar 26 : Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int2001; 51: 364. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 27 : Underestimation of Gleason score at prostate biopsy reflects sampling error in lower volume tumours. BJU Int2012; 109: 660. Google Scholar 28 : Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol2014; 192: 1367. Link, Google Scholar © 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byXue A, Kalapara A, Ballok Z, Levy S, Sivaratnam D, Ryan A, Ramdave S, O’Sullivan R, Moon D, Grummet J and Frydenberg M (2021) 68Ga-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography Maximum Standardized Uptake Value as a Predictor of Gleason Pattern 4 and Pathological Upgrading in Intermediate-Risk Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 207, NO. 2, (341-349), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2022.Song G, Ruan M, Wang H, Fan Y, He Q, Lin Z, Li X, Li P, Wang X, He Z and Zhou L (2020) How Many Targeted Biopsy Cores are Needed for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection during Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy?Journal of Urology, VOL. 204, NO. 6, (1202-1208), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020.Leyh-Bannurah S, Kachanov M, Beyersdorff D, Tian Z, Karakiewicz P, Tilki D, Fisch M, Maurer T, Graefen M and Budäus L (2019) Minimum Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy Cores Needed for Prostate Cancer Detection: Multivariable Retrospective, Lesion Based Analyses of Patients Treated with Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 203, NO. 2, (299-303), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2020.Dimitroulis P, Rabenalt R, Nini A, Hiester A, Esposito I, Schimmöller L, Antoch G, Albers P and Arsov C (2018) Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy—Are 2 Biopsy Cores per Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesion Required?Journal of Urology, VOL. 200, NO. 5, (1030-1034), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018.Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Galia A, Fraggetta F and Pennisi M (2018) Is it Time to Perform Only Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Cores? Our Experience with 1,032 Men Who Underwent Prostate BiopsyJournal of Urology, VOL. 200, NO. 4, (774-778), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2018.Smith J (2018) This Month in Adult UrologyJournal of Urology, VOL. 199, NO. 4, (863-864), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2018. Volume 199Issue 4April 2018Page: 976-982 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsriskprostatic neoplasmsneoplasm gradingimage-guided biopsypathologysurgicalMetricsAuthor Information Brian P. Calio Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Abhinav Sidana Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland Division of Urology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Dordaneh Sugano Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author Sonia Gaur Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author Mahir Maruf Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author Amit L. Jain Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author Maria J. Merino Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author Peter L. Choyke Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author Bradford J. Wood Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland Financial interest and/or other relationship with Philips. More articles by this author Peter A. Pinto Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author Baris Turkbey Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...