Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the accuracy in histologic grading of MRI/US image fusion biopsy by comparing histopathology between systematic biopsies (SB), targeted biopsies (TB) and the combination of both (SB + TB) with the final histopathologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy specimens.

Materials and methods

Retrospective, multicentric study of 443 patients who underwent SB and TB using MRI/US fusion technique (Urostation® and Trinity®) prior to radical prostatectomy between 2010 and 2017. Cochran’s Q test and McNemar test were conducted as a post hoc test. Uni-multivariable analyses were performed on several clinic-pathological variables to analyze factors predicting histopathological concordance for targeted biopsies.

Results

Concordance in ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade between SB, TB and SB + TB with final histopathology was 49.4%, 51.2%, and 63.2% for overall prostate cancer and 41.2%, 48.3%, and 56.7% for significant prostate cancer (ISUP grade ≥ 2), respectively. Significant difference in terms of concordance, downgrading and upgrading was found between SB and TB (ISUP grade ≥ 2 only), SB and SB + TB, TB and SB + TB (overall ISUP grade and ISUP grade ≥ 2) (p < 0.001). Total number of cores and previous biopsies were significant independent predictive factors for concordance with TB technique.

Conclusion

In this retrospective study, combination of SB and TB significantly increased concordance with final histopathology despite a limited additional number of cores needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P et al (2016) 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1415–1424. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman ML, Sorcini A et al (2008) Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 54(2):371–381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. King CR, Long JP (2000) Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem? Int J Cancer 90(6):326–330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gordetsky J, Epstein J (2016) Grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma: Current state and prognostic implications. Diagn Pathol 11:25

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tan N, Margolis DJ, Lu DY, King KG, Huang J, Reiter RE et al (2015) Characteristics of detected and missed prostate cancer foci on 3-T multiparametric MRI using an endorectal coil correlated with whole-mount thin-section histopathology. Am J Roentgenol 205(1):W87–W92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Russo F, Regge D, Armando E, Giannini V, Vignati A, Mazzetti S et al (2016) Detection of prostate cancer index lesions with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) using whole-mount histological sections as the reference standard. BJU Int 118(1):84–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peltier A, Aoun F, Lemort M, Kwizera F, Paesmans M, Van Velthoven R (2015) MRI-targeted biopsies versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer in biopsy naïve men. Biomed Res Int 2015:571708. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/571708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch JLHR, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO et al (2017) Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 71:517–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee DJ, Recabal P, Sjoberg DD, Thong A, Lee JK, Eastham JA et al (2016) Comparative effectiveness of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion software and visual targeting: a prospective study. J Urol 196(3):697–702

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Valerio M, McCartan N, Freeman A, Punwani S, Emberton M, Ahmed HU (2015) Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 33(10):424.e9–424.e12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM et al (2014) 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 66(2):343–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lista G, Lughezzani G, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Hurle R, Buffi N et al (2017) Absence of learning curve impact may let MRI-TRUS fusion guided biopsy up for early diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol Suppl 16:p1086–p1087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cool DW, Zhang X, Romagnoli C, Izawa JI, Romano WM, Fenster A (2015) Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 204:83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kwak JT, Hong CW, Pinto PA, Williams M, Xu S, Kruecker J et al. (2015) Is visual registration equivalent to semiautomated registration in prostate biopsy? Biomed Res Int 2015:394742. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/394742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A et al (2016) A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol 69(1):149–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Pääkkö E, Piippo U, Kauppila S, Lammentausta E et al (2016) Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol 69(3):419–425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, Cossu M, Bollito E, Veltri A et al (2017) Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol 72(2):282–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 67(4):787–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, Renner T, Herout R, Baunacke 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(2):213–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Porpiglia F, De Luca S, Passera R, Manfredi M, Mele F, Bollito E et al (2016) Multiparametric-magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy improves agreement between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. Anticancer Res 36(9):4833–4840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lanz C, Cornud F, Beuvon F, Lefèvre A, Legmann P, Zerbib M et al (2016) Gleason score determination with transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided prostate biopsies—are we gaining in accuracy? J Urol 195(1):88–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) 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 40(2):244–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Albisinni S, Joniau S, Quackels T, De Coster G, Dekuyper P, Van Cleynenbreugel B et al (2017) Current trends in patient enrollment for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in Belgium. Cancer 123(21):4139–4146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lunardi P, Ploussard G, Grosclaude P, Roumiguié M, Soulié M, Beauval JB et al (2017) Current impact of age and comorbidity assessment on prostate cancer treatment choice and over/undertreatment risk. World J Urol 35(4):587–593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Radtke JP, Teber D, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA (2015) The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management. Transl Androl Urol 4(3):326–341

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Cornud F, Khoury G, Bouazza N, Beuvon F, Peyromaure M, Flam T et al (2014) Tumor target volume for focal therapy of prostate cancer—does multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging allow for a reliable estimation? J Urol 191(5):1272–1279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R et al (2013) Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 64:876–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Ameye Lieveke for her statistical advice.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Boulevard de Waterloo 121, 1000, Brussels, Belgium

    R. Diamand, W. Al Hajj Obeid, R. Van Velthoven & A. Peltier

  2. Department of Urology, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    S. Albisinni & T. Roumeguere

  3. Department of Urology, San Lazzaro Hospital, Alba, Italy

    M. Oderda & G. Fasolis

  4. Department of Urology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy

    G. Simone & M. Ferriero

  5. Department of Urology, Saint Augustin Clinic, Bordeaux, France

    J-B. Roche & T. Piechaud

  6. Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Urology Unit, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy

    A. Pastore & A. Carbone

  7. Department of Urology, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France

    G. Fiard & J-L. Descotes

  8. Department of Surgical Sciences, Urology Unit, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    G. Marra & P. Gontero

  9. Department of Urology, Campus Bio-medico University, Rome, Italy

    E. Altobelli & R. Papalia

  10. Department of Urology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK

    P. Kumar

  11. Department of Urology, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK

    D. Eldred-Evans

  12. Department of Urology, Humanitas Gradenigo Hospital, Turin, Italy

    A. Giacobbe & G. Muto

  13. Department of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord Hospital, Pesaro Fano, Italy

    V. Lacetera & V. Beatrici

Authors
  1. R. Diamand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Oderda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Al Hajj Obeid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Albisinni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Van Velthoven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Fasolis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Simone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. Ferriero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. J-B. Roche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. T. Piechaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. A. Pastore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. A. Carbone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. G. Fiard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. J-L. Descotes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. G. Marra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. P. Gontero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. E. Altobelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. R. Papalia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. P. Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. D. Eldred-Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. A. Giacobbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. G. Muto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. V. Lacetera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. V. Beatrici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. T. Roumeguere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. A. Peltier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RD: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing.MO: project development, data collection, and supervision. WAHO: data collection and manuscript editing. SA and TR: manuscript editing. RV, GF, GS, MF, J-BR, TP, AP, AC, GF, J-LD, GM, PG, EA, RP, PK, DE-E, AG, GM, VL, and VB: data collection. AP: project development and supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Diamand.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This is a retrospective study. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 31 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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 37, 2109–2117 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02634-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02634-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation