Prostate magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy global grade correlates better than highest grade with prostatectomy grade.
Gleason grade
Grade Group
magnetic resonance imaging
prostate cancer
targeted biopsy
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2023
03 2023
Historique:
revised:
31
10
2022
received:
16
05
2022
accepted:
21
11
2022
pubmed:
4
12
2022
medline:
25
1
2023
entrez:
3
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy has become an increasingly common method of diagnosing prostate cancer. A previous study from our institution demonstrated that the biopsy global Grade Group (gGG, aggregate GG of all positive cores) and highest Grade Group (hGG in any core) both show substantial concordance with the Grade Group at radical prostatectomy (RPGG) while the discordance predominantly consists of upgrading in gGG and downgrading in hGG. We performed a larger cohort study focused on biopsy cases in which gGG and hGG differ, to determine their relative concordance with RPGG. We conducted a retrospective review of radical prostatectomy specimens with prior MRI-targeted biopsies from our institution between 2016 and 2020. Separate gGG and hGG were assigned to each MRI-targeted lesion. Targeted lesions with different gGG versus hGG were segregated from those with identical gGG and hGG. The concordance of biopsy GG with RPGG was evaluated using κ coefficient analysis. Of the 489 lesions with MRI-targeted biopsies, 82 (17%) differed in gGG versus hGG. The gGG of 46 (56%), 33 (40%), and 3 (4%) lesions were unchanged, upgraded, and downgraded at radical prostatectomy, respectively (κ= 0.302, weighted κ = 0.334). The hGG of 24 (29%), 9 (11%), and 49 (60%) lesions were unchanged, upgraded, and downgraded at radical prostatectomy, respectively (κ = 0.040, weighted κ = 0.198). When stratified by the biopsy GG, gGG showed the highest concordance in GG2 (61%) and GG3 (54%) lesions. The hGG resulted in substantial downgrading (60%) with less optimal concordance regardless of the biopsy GG. Neither the prebiopsy prostate specific antigen level nor the PI-RADS score was predictive of upgrading of gGG. When gGG and hGG differ, gGG method more accurately predicts the RPGG than hGG, particularly in GG2 and GG3 lesions which comprised the majority of targeted lesions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy has become an increasingly common method of diagnosing prostate cancer. A previous study from our institution demonstrated that the biopsy global Grade Group (gGG, aggregate GG of all positive cores) and highest Grade Group (hGG in any core) both show substantial concordance with the Grade Group at radical prostatectomy (RPGG) while the discordance predominantly consists of upgrading in gGG and downgrading in hGG. We performed a larger cohort study focused on biopsy cases in which gGG and hGG differ, to determine their relative concordance with RPGG.
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective review of radical prostatectomy specimens with prior MRI-targeted biopsies from our institution between 2016 and 2020. Separate gGG and hGG were assigned to each MRI-targeted lesion. Targeted lesions with different gGG versus hGG were segregated from those with identical gGG and hGG. The concordance of biopsy GG with RPGG was evaluated using κ coefficient analysis.
RESULTS
Of the 489 lesions with MRI-targeted biopsies, 82 (17%) differed in gGG versus hGG. The gGG of 46 (56%), 33 (40%), and 3 (4%) lesions were unchanged, upgraded, and downgraded at radical prostatectomy, respectively (κ= 0.302, weighted κ = 0.334). The hGG of 24 (29%), 9 (11%), and 49 (60%) lesions were unchanged, upgraded, and downgraded at radical prostatectomy, respectively (κ = 0.040, weighted κ = 0.198). When stratified by the biopsy GG, gGG showed the highest concordance in GG2 (61%) and GG3 (54%) lesions. The hGG resulted in substantial downgrading (60%) with less optimal concordance regardless of the biopsy GG. Neither the prebiopsy prostate specific antigen level nor the PI-RADS score was predictive of upgrading of gGG.
CONCLUSIONS
When gGG and hGG differ, gGG method more accurately predicts the RPGG than hGG, particularly in GG2 and GG3 lesions which comprised the majority of targeted lesions.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
323-330Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate Cancer (Version 3.20220). National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Accessed January 21, 2022. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf
Arsov C, Becker N, Rabenalt R, et al. The use of targeted MR-guided prostate biopsy reduces the risk of Gleason upgrading on radical prostatectomy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015;141(11):2061-2068.
Diamand R, Oderda M, Al Hajj Obeid W, et al. 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. 2019;37(10):2109-2117.
Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, et al. Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naive: the prospective assessment of image registration in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PAIREDCAP) study. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(9):811-818.
Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(10):917-928.
Luzzago S, Petralia G, Maresca D, et al. Pathological findings at radical prostatectomy of biopsy naive men diagnosed with MRI targeted biopsy alone without concomitant standard systematic sampling. Urol Oncol. 2020;38(12):929-e11-929-e19.
Xu N, Wu YP, Li XD, et al. Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology: is magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy more accurate. J Cancer. 2018;9(19):3634-3639.
van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44(8):e87-e99.
Varma M, Shah RB, Williamson SR, Berney DM. 2019 Gleason grading recommendations from ISUP and GUPS: broadly concordant but with significant differences. Virchows Arch. 2021;478(4):813-815.
Epstein JI, Amin MB, Fine SW, et al. The 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) white paper on contemporary grading of prostate cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021;145(4):461-493.
Fine SW, Trpkov K, Amin MB, et al. Practice patterns related to prostate cancer grading: results of a 2019 Genitourinary Pathology Society clinician survey. Urol Oncol. 2021;39(5):295.e1-295.e8.
Gordetsky JB, Hirsch MS, Rais-Bahrami S. MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: key considerations for pathologists. Histopathology. 2020;77(1):18-25.
Glaser ZA, Gordetsky JB, Bae S, Nix JW, Porter KK, Rais-Bahrami S. Evaluation of MSKCC preprostatectomy nomogram in men who undergo MRI-targeted prostate biopsy prior to radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2019;37(12):970-975.
Deng FM, Isaila B, Jones D, et al. Optimal method for reporting prostate cancer grade in MRI-targeted biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2022;46(1):44-50.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244-252.
College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the Examination of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens From Patients With Carcinoma of the Prostate Gland. Available from: www.cap.org
Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al. International society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):6-15.
Huang CC, Deng FM, Kong MX, Ren Q, Melamed J, Zhou M. Re-evaluating the concept of “dominant/index tumor nodule” in multifocal prostate cancer. Virchows Arch. 2014;464(5):589-594.
Huang CC, Kong MX, Zhou M, et al. Gleason score 3 + 4=7 prostate cancer with minimal quantity of gleason pattern 4 on needle biopsy is associated with low-risk tumor in radical prostatectomy specimen. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(8):1096-1101.
Rührup J, Preisser F, Theißen L, et al. MRI-fusion targeted vs. systematic prostate biopsy-how does the biopsy technique affect gleason grade concordance and upgrading after radical prostatectomy. Front Surg. 2019;6:55.
Trpkov K, Sangkhamanon S, Yilmaz A, et al. Concordance of “case level” global, highest, and largest volume cancer grade group on needle biopsy versus grade group on radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018;42(11):1522-1529.
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(11):1125-1132.
Arias-Stella JA, 3rd, Shah AB, Montoya-Cerrillo D, Williamson SR, Gupta NS. Prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score correlation in heterogenous tumors: proposal for a composite Gleason score. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39(9):1213-1218.
Gordetsky JB, Schultz L, Porter KK, et al. Defining the optimal method for reporting prostate cancer grade and tumor extent on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsies. Hum Pathol. 2018;76:68-75.
Verhoef EI, Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, et al. Characteristics and outcome of prostate cancer patients with overall biopsy Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 and highest Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 or > 3 + 4 = 7. Histopathology. 2018;72(5):760-765.