Abstract

57 Background: US-MRI fusion biopsy (FB) showed that it improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). A more accurate diagnostic method is desirable to avoid misclassification, which in turn is particularly important in appropriate decision making on treatment for PCa (active surveillance or focal therapy or radical treatment). We aimed to compare the Gleason upgrading (GU) rates and the concordance of the Gleason scores in the biopsy versus final pathology after the surgery in patients who underwent only TRUS systematic random biopsies versus US-MRI FB for PCa. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients’ prospective collected data that underwent prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy were included from January 2011 to June 2016 at our institution. The study cohort was divided into: US-MRI FB (Group A) and only TRUS systematic random biopsy (Group B). US-MRI FB was performed in patients who had a previous MRI with a focal lesion classified by Likert score ≥ 3, otherwise a TRUS systematic random biopsy was performed. All biopsies and surgical specimens were analyzed by the same uropathologist and MRIs were analyzed by two expert urological radiologists. Results: 73 men underwent US-MRI FB and 89 TRUS systematic random biopsy. The GU rate was higher in group B (31.5% vs 16.4%; p = 0.027). GU according to Gleason grade pattern was higher in Group B against Group A (40.4% vs 23.3%; p = 0.02). Analyses from separate Gleason grade pattern showed that Gleason score 3+4 presented less GU in group A (24.1% vs 52.6%; p = 0.043). The Bland-Altman plot analysis showed a higher bias in Group B compared to group A (-0.27 [-1.40 to 0.86] vs -0.01 [-1.42 to 1.39]). In the multivariable logistic regression the only independent predictor of GU was the use of TRUS systematic random biopsy (2.64 [1.11 – 6.28]; p = 0.024). Conclusions: The US-MRI FB appears to be related to a decrease in GU rate and an increase in the concordance between biopsy and final pathology in comparison to TRUS random biopsy, that leads to greater accuracy on diagnosis and better treatment decision.

Highlights

  • Brazilian data shows that prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy in men

  • Primary endpoint Gleason upgrading was higher in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) systematic random biopsies (SRB) compared to Ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging (US-MRI) fusion biopsy (FB) (31.5% vs. 16.4%; p=0.027) (Table-2)

  • When analysing Gleason upgrading according to the Gleason grade group, there was a higher rate of Gleason upgrading in patients who underwent TRUS SRB compared to those who underwent US-MRI FB (40.4% vs. 23.3%; p=0.020) (Table-2)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Brazilian data shows that prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy in men. The estimated incidence of PCa for 2016 is 61,200 new cases, with an estimated risk of 61.82 new cases per 100,000 men [1]. PCa is commonly diagnosed by transrectal ultrasound ibju | Gleason upgrading rates TRUS vs fusion biopsies (TRUS)-guided random biopsies. The Gleason score of PCa has been shown to be an important criterion to predict tumour behaviour and to determine the appropriate course of treatment [2]. The randomness and non-targeted nature of TRUS biopsy can result in inaccurate sampling of the cancer and misclassification of cancer risk. Researchers have demonstrated discrepancies in the Gleason score of TRUS biopsy compared to the final surgical specimens, with under-estimation reported in approximately 30% of cases [3]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.