Top

International Urology and Nephrology

Published in:

24-10-2023 | Prostate Cancer | Urology - Original Paper

Cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy versus transrectal ultrasonography-guided systematic biopsy: comparison and analysis of the risk of Gleason score upgrading

Authors: Tianyun Zheng, Kaipeng Bi, Yueqing Tang, Yuan Zeng, Junyan Wang, Lei Yan

Published in: International Urology and Nephrology | Issue 3/2024

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to assess the precision of the Gleason score (GS) obtained through cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy (COG-TB) in comparison to transrectal ultrasonography-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB), and to identify factors that can predict Gleason score upgrading (GSU) in a cohort of Chinese patients.

Methods

A final enrollment of 245 patients was recorded. Between 2020 and 2022, 132 patients underwent TRUS-SB, and 113 patients underwent COG-TB. The Chi-square test was performed to analyze the variation in downgrading, concordance, and upgrading between TRUS-SB and COG-TB. Multivariable analyses were performed to seek factors predicting Gleason score upgrading. Finally, a model which utilizes multivariable logistic regression was developed to predict the likelihood of GSU.

Results

The concordance for TRUS-SB and COG-TB were 42.4% and 65.5%, respectively. TRUS-SB and COG-TB exhibited notable disparities in downgrading, concordance, and upgrading. Age, prostate volume, body mass index (BMI), and the biopsy modality were significant predictive factors.

Conclusion

COG-TB can significantly increase concordance with final histopathology. Age, prostate volume, BMI, and the biopsy modality were predictive factors of GSU.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A (2022) Cancer statistics, 2022. CA A Cancer J Clin 72:7–33. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708CrossRef

Epstein JI, Egevad L, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252CrossRefPubMed

Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A et al (2016) A decade of active surveillance in the prias study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol 70:954–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.007CrossRefPubMed

Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL et al (2006) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsies: risk factors and clinical implications. J Urol 175:534–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(18)33846-1CrossRef

Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE et al (2020) MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 382:917–928. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1910038CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dong F, Jones JS, Stephenson AJ et al (2008) Prostate cancer volume at biopsy predicts clinically significant upgrading. J Urol 179:896–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.060CrossRefPubMed

Hong SK, Han BK, Lee ST et al (2009) Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (> or = 12)-core prostate biopsy. World J Urol 27:271–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-008-0343-3CrossRefPubMed

Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M et al (2016) Direct comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results with final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasonography-fusion biopsy. BJU Int 118:213–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13461CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lanz C, Cornud F, Beuvon F et al (2016) Gleason score determination with transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided prostate biopsies-are we gaining in accuracy? J Urol 195:88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.021CrossRefPubMed

11.

Arsov C, Becker N, Rabenalt R et al (2015) The use of targeted MR-guided prostate biopsy reduces the risk of Gleason upgrading on radical prostatectomy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 141:2061–2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-015-1991-5CrossRefPubMed

12.

Diamand R, Oderda M, Al Hajj Obeid W et al (2019) A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 37:2109–2117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02634-9CrossRefPubMed

13.

Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R et al (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy–prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268:461–469. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121501CrossRefPubMed

14.

Gershman B, Dahl DM, Olumi AF et al (2013) Smaller prostate gland size and older age predict Gleason score upgrading. Urol Oncol: Semin Orig Investig 31:1033–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.11.032CrossRef

15.

Herlemann A, Buchner A, Kretschmer A et al (2017) Postoperative upgrading of prostate cancer in men ≥75 years: a propensity score-matched analysis. World J Urol 35:1517–1524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2045-1CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kulkarni GS, Lockwood G, Evans A et al (2007) Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer 109:2432–2438. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22712CrossRefPubMed

17.

Richstone L, Bianco FJ, Shah HH et al (2008) Radical prostatectomy in men aged >or=70 years: effect of age on upgrading, upstaging, and the accuracy of a preoperative nomogram. BJU Int 101:541–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07410.xCrossRefPubMed

18.

Sun L, Caire AA, Robertson CN et al (2009) Men older than 70 years have higher risk prostate cancer and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras. J Urol 182:2242–2248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.034CrossRefPubMed

19.

Knight AS, Sharma P, de Riese WTW (2022) MRI determined prostate volume and the incidence of prostate cancer on MRI-fusion biopsy: a systemic review of reported data for the last 20 years. Int Urol Nephrol 54:3047–3054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-022-03351-wCrossRefPubMed

20.

Pierorazio PM, Kinnaman MD, Wosnitzer MS et al (2007) Prostate volume and pathologic prostate cancer outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urology 70:696–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.05.022CrossRefPubMed

21.

Moussa AS, Li J, Soriano M et al (2009) Prostate biopsy clinical and pathological variables that predict significant grading changes in patients with intermediate and high grade prostate cancer. BJU Int 103:43–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08059.xCrossRefPubMed

22.

Davidson DD, Koch MO, Lin H et al (2010) Does the size matter?: Prostate weight does not predict PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Am J Clin Pathol 133:662–668. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPPHGXDI94SGACCrossRefPubMed

23.

Min SH, Park YH, Lee SB et al (2012) Impact of prostate size on pathologic outcomes and prognosis after radical prostatectomy. Korean J Urol 53:463–466. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2012.53.7.463CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Gao Y, Jiang C-Y, Mao S-K et al (2016) Low serum testosterone predicts upgrading and upstaging of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Asian J Androl 18:639–643. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.169984CrossRefPubMed

25.

Lorenzo G, Hughes TJR, Dominguez-Frojan P et al (2019) Computer simulations suggest that prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia mechanically impedes prostate cancer growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116:1152–1161. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1815735116ADSCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Perez-Cornago A, Appleby PN, Pischon T et al (2017) Tall height and obesity are associated with an increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer: results from the EPIC cohort study. BMC Med 15:115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0876-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Bayoud Y et al (2012) The risk of upstaged disease increases with body mass index in low-risk prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. Eur Urol 61:356–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.041CrossRefPubMed

28.

Price AJ, Allen NE, Appleby PN et al (2012) Insulin-like growth factor-I concentration and risk of prostate cancer: results from the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21:1531–1541. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0481-TCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Albanes D, Weinstein SJ, Wright ME et al (2009) Serum insulin, glucose, indices of insulin resistance, and risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1272–1279. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp260CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Zhang B, Wu S, Zhang Y et al (2021) Analysis of risk factors for Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy in a Chinese cohort. Cancer Med 10:7772–7780. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy versus transrectal ultrasonography-guided systematic biopsy: comparison and analysis of the risk of Gleason score upgrading
Authors: Tianyun Zheng
Kaipeng Bi
Yueqing Tang
Yuan Zeng
Junyan Wang
Lei Yan
Publication date: 24-10-2023
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Published in: International Urology and Nephrology / Issue 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0301-1623
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2584
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-023-03848-y

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2024

Novel anthropometric measures are positively associated with erectile dysfunction: a cross-sectional study

Strong apoptotic response of testis tumor cells following cisplatin treatment

Baseline factors and surgical procedures affecting changes in lower urinary tract symptoms after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the impact of nerve-sparing

Lymphadenectomy before and after radical cystectomy: does this affect the radicality? A prospective randomized comparative study

Potential role of glutathione S‑transferase M1 gene polymorphism in kidney calcium oxalate stone formation

Separation of the glanular part of the urethral plate, mobilization of the distal part of the neourethra, and creation of the glanular groove: a new modification of second-stage Thiersch–Duplay urethroplasty in proximal hypospadias repair

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials