Active surveillance eligibility of MRI-positive patients with grade group 2 prostate cancer: a pathological study

Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeting on Pathologic Upgrading and Downgrading at Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The evidence supporting multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting for biopsy is nearly exclusively based on biopsy pathologic outcomes. This is problematic, as targeting likely allows preferential identification of small high-grade areas of questionable oncologic significance, raising the likelihood of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the impact of MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsies on radical prostatectomy (RP) grade group concordance.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched from July 2018 to January 2022. Studies that conducted systematic and MRI-targeted prostate biopsies and compared biopsy results with pathology after RP were included. We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether pathologic upgrading and downgrading were influenced by biopsy type and a net-benefit analysis using pooled risk difference estimates.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Both targeted only and combined biopsies were less likely to result in upgrading (odds ratio [OR] vs systematic of 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.77, p < 0.001, and 0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.55, p < 0.001), respectively). Targeted only and combined biopsies increased the odds of downgrading (1.24 (95% CI 1.05-1.46), p = 0.012, and 1.96 (95% CI 1.68-2.27, p < 0.001) compared with systematic biopsies, respectively. The net benefit of targeted and combined biopsies is 8 and 7 per 100 if harms of up- and downgrading are considered equal, but 7 and -1 per 100 if the harm of downgrading is considered twice that of upgrading.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of MRI-targeting results in lower rates of upgrading as compared to systematic biopsy at RP (27% vs 42%). However, combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies are associated with more downgrading at RP (19% v 11% for combined vs systematic). Strong heterogeneity suggests further research into factors that influence the rates of up- and downgrading and that distinguishes clinically relevant from irrelevant grade changes is needed. Until then, the benefits and harms of combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies cannot be fully assessed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed the ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies to predict cancer grade at prostatectomy. We found that combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies result in more cancers being downgraded than systematic biopsies.

Upgrading on Per Protocol versus For Cause surveillance prostate biopsies: An opportunity to decreasing the burden of active surveillance

BACKGROUND

Most prostate cancer (PC) active surveillance (AS) protocols recommend "Per Protocol" surveillance biopsy (PPSBx) every 1-3 years, even if clinical and imaging parameters remained stable. Herein, we compared the incidence of upgrading on biopsies that met criteria for "For Cause" surveillance biopsy (FCSBx) versus PPSBx.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed men with GG1 PC on AS in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Surveillance prostate biopsies obtained 1 year after diagnosis were classified as either PPSBx or FCSBx. Biopsies were retrospectively deemed FCSBx if any of these criteria were met: PSA velocity > 0.75 ng/mL/year; rise in PSA > 3 ng from baseline; surveillance magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (sMRI) with a PIRADS ≥ 4; change in DRE. Biopsies were classified PPSBx if none of these criteria were met. The primary outcome was upgrading to ≥GG2 or ≥GG3 on surveillance biopsy. The secondary objective was to assess for the association of reassuring (PIRADS ≤ 3) confirmatory or surveillance MRI findings and upgrading for patients undergoing PPSBx. Proportions were compared with the chi-squared test.

RESULTS

We identified 1773 men with GG1 PC in MUSIC who underwent a surveillance biopsy. Men meeting criteria for FCSBx had more upgrading to ≥GG2 (45%) and ≥GG3 (12%) compared with those meeting criteria for PPSBx (26% and 4.9%, respectively, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). Men with a reassuring confirmatory or surveillance MRI undergoing PPSBx had less upgrading to ≥GG2 (17% and 17%, respectively) and ≥GG3 (2.9% and 1.8%, respectively) disease compared with men without an MRI (31% and 7.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing PPSBx had significantly less upgrading compared with men undergoing FCSBx. Confirmatory and surveillance MRI seem to be valuable tools to stratify the intensity of surveillance biopsies for men on AS. These data may help inform the development of a risk-stratified, data driven AS protocol.

Low-volume grade group 2 prostate cancer candidates for active surveillance: a radical prostatectomy retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines support considering selected men with ISUP grade group (GG) 2 prostate cancer for active surveillance (AS). We assessed the association of clinical variables with unfavorable pathology at radical prostatectomy in low-volume GG 2 prostate cancer on biopsy in a retrospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 378 men with low-volume (≤ 2 cores) GG 2 localized prostate cancer who underwent prostatectomy at a single tertiary cancer center. Multivariable logistic regression of unfavorable pathology, upgrading to ≥ T3, or GG ≥ 3 was performed in relation to clinical factors, common variables used in AS in GG 1 and percentage Gleason 4 at biopsy. We compared the performance of potential variables with commonly used combined AS restrictions in GG 1 prostate cancer.

RESULTS

In total, 128/378 (34%) men had unfavorable pathology at radical prostatectomy. On multivariable analysis, > 5% Gleason pattern 4 was independently associated with an increased risk of GG ≥ 3. A maximum percentage core involvement > 50% was independently associated with an increased risk of pT-stage ≥ 3 and unfavorable pathology. Restriction to patients with ≤ 5% Gleason 4 decreased the upgrading of both unfavorable pathology (OR = 0.62, p = 0.041) and GG ≥ 3 (OR = 0.17, p = 0.0007) compared to the full cohort, while restriction to those with ≤ 50% of max core involvement did not.

CONCLUSION

In low-volume GG 2, the percentage of Gleason 4 of ≤ 5% was the strongest predictor in reducing upgrading at final pathology. This easily available pathological descriptor could be used to guide urologists and patients when considering AS in this setting.

Selecting Patients with Favorable Risk, Grade Group 2 Prostate Cancer for Active Surveillance-Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging Have a Role?

PURPOSE

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® recommends that selected men with grade group 2 prostate cancer be considered for active surveillance. However, selecting which patients with grade group 2 disease can be safely managed by active surveillance remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with adverse pathology in the radical prostatectomy specimen of men with favorable risk grade group 2 prostate cancer, which could help select patients for active surveillance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients with favorable grade group 2 disease who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2010 and 2019. Preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was scored as negative (no identifiable lesion), positive (identifiable lesion) or equivocal. We defined a multivariable logistic regression model with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging score as the predictor and adverse pathology (up staging to T3a/b disease, upgrading to ≥grade group 3 or lymph node invasion) as the outcome, adjusting for preoperative prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason grade, clinical stage, and number of negative and positive prostate biopsy cores. Secondary outcomes of biochemical recurrence, grade group upgrading alone and the added value of incorporating multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging data into the nomogram were also investigated.

RESULTS

We identified 1,117 patients with favorable risk grade group 2 disease who underwent radical prostatectomy. Positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was associated with higher rates of adverse pathology (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.75-3.40, p <0.0001) and upgrading (OR 3.89, 95% CI 2.00-7.56, p <0.0001). However, as our study included only grade group 2 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, our cohort may represent a higher risk group than grade group 2 patients as a whole. Adding multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging results to a standard prediction model led to higher net benefit on decision curve analysis. An identifiable lesion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was associated with an increased risk of aggressive pathological features in the radical prostatectomy specimen of patients with favorable risk grade group 2 prostate cancer who were potential active surveillance candidates. This information could be used to inform biopsy strategy, counsel patients on treatment options and guide strategies for those on active surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining multiple magnetic resonance imaging modalities (multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging) provides a more accurate prediction of the risk presented by prostate cancer than current prediction methods. In this study, positive magnetic resonance imaging results approximately doubled the chances that a patient with favorable risk prostate cancer would be found to have adverse pathology when their prostate was removed. Thus, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging could help select patients with favorable risk cancer who may be good candidates for active surveillance, and help guide biopsy and surveillance strategies for such patients.