European urology oncology · 2021
Managing Discordant Findings Between Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Prostate Biopsy-The Key Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Transperineal Biopsy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bajeot Anne-Sophie, Covin Bertrand, Meyrignac Oliver, Pericart Sarah, Aziza Richard, Portalez Daniel, Graff-Cailleaud Pierre, Ploussard Guillaume, Roumiguié Mathieu, Malavaud Bernard
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Discordant findings between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transrectal image-guided biopsies of the prostate (TRUS-P) may result in inadequate risk stratification of localized prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To assess transperineal image-guided biopsies of the index target (TPER-IT) in terms of disease reclassification and treatment recommendations.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cases referred for suspicion or treatment of localized prostate cancer were reviewed in a multidisciplinary setting, and discordance was characterized into three scenarios: type I-negative biopsies or International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥4 index target (IT); type II-negative biopsies or ISUP grade 1 cancer in anterior IT; and type III-<3 mm stretch of cancer in PI-RADS ≥3 IT. Discordant findings were characterized in 132/558 (23.7%) patients after TRUS-P. Of these patients, 102 received reassessment TPER-IT.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objective was to report changes in treatment recommendations after TPER-IT. Therefore, cores obtained by primary TRUS-P and TPER-IT were analyzed in terms of cancer detection, ISUP grade, and Cambridge Prognostic Group classification using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: TPER-IT biopsies that consisted of fewer cores than the initial TRUS-P (seven vs 14, p < 0.0001) resulted in more cancer tissue materials for analysis (56 vs 42.5 mm, p = 0.0003). As a result, 40% of patients initially considered for follow-up (12/30) and 49% for active surveillance (30/61) were reassigned after TPER-IT to surgery or intensity-modulated radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Nonconcordance between pathology and imaging was observed in a significant proportion of patients receiving TRUS-P. TPER-IT better informed the presence and grade of cancer, resulting in a significant impact on treatment recommendations. A multidisciplinary review of mpMRI and TRUS-P findings and reassessment TPER-IT in type I-II discordances is recommended.
PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, patients with suspicious imaging of the prostate, but no or well-differentiated cancer on transrectal image-guided -biopsies, were offered transperineal image-guided biopsies for reassessment. We found that a large share of these had a more aggressive cancer than initially suspected. We conclude that discordant results warrant reassessment transperineal image-guided biopsies as these may impact disease risk classification and treatment recommendations.
OBJECTIVE: To assess transperineal image-guided biopsies of the index target (TPER-IT) in terms of disease reclassification and treatment recommendations.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cases referred for suspicion or treatment of localized prostate cancer were reviewed in a multidisciplinary setting, and discordance was characterized into three scenarios: type I-negative biopsies or International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥4 index target (IT); type II-negative biopsies or ISUP grade 1 cancer in anterior IT; and type III-<3 mm stretch of cancer in PI-RADS ≥3 IT. Discordant findings were characterized in 132/558 (23.7%) patients after TRUS-P. Of these patients, 102 received reassessment TPER-IT.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objective was to report changes in treatment recommendations after TPER-IT. Therefore, cores obtained by primary TRUS-P and TPER-IT were analyzed in terms of cancer detection, ISUP grade, and Cambridge Prognostic Group classification using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: TPER-IT biopsies that consisted of fewer cores than the initial TRUS-P (seven vs 14, p < 0.0001) resulted in more cancer tissue materials for analysis (56 vs 42.5 mm, p = 0.0003). As a result, 40% of patients initially considered for follow-up (12/30) and 49% for active surveillance (30/61) were reassigned after TPER-IT to surgery or intensity-modulated radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Nonconcordance between pathology and imaging was observed in a significant proportion of patients receiving TRUS-P. TPER-IT better informed the presence and grade of cancer, resulting in a significant impact on treatment recommendations. A multidisciplinary review of mpMRI and TRUS-P findings and reassessment TPER-IT in type I-II discordances is recommended.
PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, patients with suspicious imaging of the prostate, but no or well-differentiated cancer on transrectal image-guided -biopsies, were offered transperineal image-guided biopsies for reassessment. We found that a large share of these had a more aggressive cancer than initially suspected. We conclude that discordant results warrant reassessment transperineal image-guided biopsies as these may impact disease risk classification and treatment recommendations.