Optimal Method for Reporting Prostate Cancer Grade in MRI-targeted Biopsies.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Optimal Method for Reporting Prostate Cancer Grade in MRI-targeted Biopsies.
Autorzy:: Deng FM; Departments of Pathology.; Urology.
Isaila B; Departments of Pathology.
Jones D; Departments of Pathology.
Ren Q; Departments of Pathology.
Kyung P; Departments of Pathology.
Hoskoppal D; Departments of Pathology.
Huang H; Departments of Pathology.
Mirsadraei L; Departments of Pathology.
Xia Y; Population Health, New York University Langone School of Medicine, New York, NY.
Melamed J; Departments of Pathology.
Źródło:: The American journal of surgical pathology [Am J Surg Pathol] 2022 Jan 01; Vol. 46 (1), pp. 44-50.
Typ publikacji:: Comparative Study; Journal Article; Observational Study
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Publication: <2015- > : Philadelphia, PA : Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Original Publication: New York, Masson.
MeSH Terms:: Image-Guided Biopsy/*standards
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional/*standards
Neoplasm Grading/*standards
Prostatic Neoplasms/*pathology
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biopsy, Large-Core Needle/standards ; Humans ; Male ; Medical Records/standards ; Middle Aged ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prostatectomy ; Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies
References:: Pierorazio PM, Walsh PC, Partin AW, et al. Prognostic Gleason grade grouping: data based on the modified Gleason scoring system. BJU Int. 2013;111:753–760.
Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YH, et al. Low-risk prostate cancer: the accuracy of multiparametric MR imaging for detection. Radiology. 2014;271:435–444.
Kasivisvanathan V, Emberton M, Moore CM. MRI-targeted biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. New Engl J Med. 2018;379:589–590.
Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 2011;108:E171–E178.
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;141:2061–2068.
Jiang X, Zhang J, Tang J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy outperforms standard approaches in detecting prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016;5:301–309.
Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G, et al. PI-RADS Steering Committee: the PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology. 2019;292:464–474.
Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 2014;192:648–658.
Le JD, Stephenson S, Brugger M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol. 2014;192:1367–1373.
van Leenders G, 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:e87–e99.
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;145:461–493.
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.
Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014;66:343–351.
Meng XS, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, et al. Combining MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy improves risk stratification of active surveillance candidates. J Urol. 2016;195:E232–E233.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.
Samarantunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al. The ISUP prostate consensus group. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens: working group 1: handling of the specimen. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:6–15.
Huang CC, Deng FM, Kong MX, et al. Re-evaluating the concept of “dominant/index tumor nodule” in multifocal prostate cancer. Virchows Arch. 2014;464:589–594.
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;38:1096–1101.
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;42:1522–1529.
Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69:428–435.
Varma M, Berney D, Oxley J, et al. Gleason score assignment is the sole responsibility of the pathologist. Histopathology. 2018;73:5–7.
Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2017;72:275–281.
Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, et al. Prostate cancer, version 2.2019, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17:479–505.
Rosenkrantz AB, Triolo MJ, Melamed J, et al. Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41:708–714.
Vos EK, Litjens GJ, Kobus T, et al. Assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol. 2013;64:448–455.
Wang Q, Li H, Yan X, et al. Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of pathologic Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:337.e315–337.e324.
Alqahtani S, Wei C, Zhang Y, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer Gleason score upgrading from biopsy to radical prostatectomy using pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI PIRADS scoring system. Sci Rep. 2020;10:7722.
Reese AC, Cowan JE, Brajtbord JS, et al. The quantitative Gleason score improves prostate cancer risk assessment. Cancer. 2012;118:6046–6054.
Deng FM, Donin NM, Benito RP, et al. Size-adjusted quantitative Gleason score as a predictor of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016;70:248–253.
Cole AI, Morgan TM, Spratt DE, et al. Prognostic value of percent Gleason grade 4 at prostate biopsy in predicting prostatectomy pathology and recurrence. J Urol. 2016;196:405–411.
Dean LW, Assel M, Sjoberg DD, et al. Clinical usefulness of total length of Gleason pattern 4 on biopsy in men with grade group 2 prostate cancer. J Urol. 2019;201:77–82.
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20210611 Date Completed: 20220214 Latest Revision: 20220217
Update Code:: 20240104
DOI:: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001758
PMID:: 34115670
: Czasopismo naukowe

When multiple cores are biopsied from a single magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted lesion, Gleason grade may be assigned for each core separately or for all cores of the lesion in aggregate. Because of the potential for disparate grades, an optimal method for pathology reporting MRI lesion grade awaits validation. We examined our institutional experience on the concordance of biopsy grade with subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) grade of targeted lesions when grade is determined on individual versus aggregate core basis. For 317 patients (with 367 lesions) who underwent MRI-targeted biopsy followed by RP, targeted lesion grade was assigned as (1) global Grade Group (GG), aggregated positive cores; (2) highest GG (highest grade in single biopsy core); and (3) largest volume GG (grade in the core with longest cancer linear length). The 3 biopsy grades were compared (equivalence, upgrade, or downgrade) with the final grade of the lesion in the RP, using κ and weighted κ coefficients. The biopsy global, highest, and largest GGs were the same as the final RP GG in 73%, 68%, 62% cases, respectively (weighted κ: 0.77, 0.79, and 0.71). For cases where the targeted lesion biopsy grade scores differed from each other when assigned by global, highest, and largest GG, the concordance with the targeted lesion RP GG was 69%, 52%, 31% for biopsy global, highest, and largest GGs tumors (weighted κ: 0.65, 0.68, 0.59). Overall, global, highest, and largest GG of the targeted biopsy show substantial agreement with RP-targeted lesion GG, however targeted global GG yields slightly better agreement than either targeted highest or largest GG. This becomes more apparent in nearly one third of cases when each of the 3 targeted lesion level biopsy scores differ. These results support the use of global (aggregate) GG for reporting of MRI lesion-targeted biopsies, while further validations are awaited.
Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: The authors have disclosed that they have no significant relationships with, or financial interest in, any commercial companies pertaining to this article.
(Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Informacja