1
|
Prostate Cancer Morphologies: Cribriform Pattern and Intraductal Carcinoma Relations to Adverse Pathological and Clinical Outcomes-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15051372. [PMID: 36900164 PMCID: PMC10000112 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15051372] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2023] [Revised: 02/16/2023] [Accepted: 02/18/2023] [Indexed: 02/25/2023] Open
Abstract
The present study aimed to assess the association between the cribriform pattern (CP)/intraductal carcinoma (IDC) and the adverse pathological and clinical outcomes in the radical prostatectomy (RP) cohort. A systematic search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA). The protocol from this review was registered on the PROSPERO platform. We searched PubMed®, the Cochrane Library and EM-BASE® up to the 30th of April 2022. The outcomes of interest were the extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), lymph node metastasis (LNS met), risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR), distant metastasis (MET) and disease-specific death (DSD). As a result, we identified 16 studies with 164 296 patients. A total of 13 studies containing 3254 RP patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The CP/IDC was associated with adverse outcomes, including EPE (pooled OR = 2.55, 95%CI 1.23-5.26), SVI (pooled OR = 4.27, 95%CI 1.90-9.64), LNs met (pooled OR = 6.47, 95%CI 3.76-11.14), BCR (pooled OR = 5.09, 95%CI 2.23-11.62) and MET/DSD (pooled OR = 9.84, 95%CI 2.75-35.20, p < 0.001). In conclusion, the CP/IDC belong to highly malignant prostate cancer patterns which have a negative impact on both the pathological and clinical outcomes. The presence of the CP/IDC should be included in the surgical planning and postoperative treatment guidance.
Collapse
|
2
|
Li H, Chang X, Du Y. Perineural invasion detected in prostate biopsy is a predictor of positive surgical margin of radical prostatectomy specimen: A meta-analysis. Andrologia 2022; 54:e14395. [PMID: 35233813 DOI: 10.1111/and.14395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2021] [Revised: 01/26/2022] [Accepted: 01/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
The role of perineural invasion detected by puncture biopsy of prostate cancer remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the relationship between positive perineural invasion at prostate biopsy and positive surgical margins (PSM) after radical prostatectomy. We searched a number of relevant electronic databases including Web of Science, Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until 31 March 2021. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyse all data for this article. The quality of these studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (ranged from 0 to 9 stars). Finally, we selected 13 high-quality studies in our meta-analysis, which contain 8283 patients. Overall pooled analysis proposed that biopsy perineural invasion was related to a higher risk of the positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer (RR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.56-1.92; z = 10.30, p = 0.000). Moreover, the outcomes of the publication bias checkout testified that without significant bias arose (Egger's test: 0.086 > 0.05; Begg's test: 0.59 > 0.05). The existing evidence indicates that higher incidence of positive surgical margins in patients who had perineural invasion was detected in prostate biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hui Li
- Department of Urology, Fuyang People's Hospital, Fuyang, China
| | - Xuefeng Chang
- Fuyang People's Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Fuyang, China
| | - Yongqiang Du
- Fuyang People's Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Fuyang, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Salciccia S, Rosati D, Viscuso P, Canale V, Scarrone E, Frisenda M, Catuzzi R, Moriconi M, Asero V, Signore S, De Dominicis M, Emiliozzi P, Carbone A, Pastore AL, Fuschi A, Di Pierro GB, Gentilucci A, Cattarino S, Mariotti G, Busetto GM, Ferro M, De Berardinis E, Ricciuti GP, Panebianco V, Magliocca FM, Del Giudice F, Maggi M, Sciarra A. Influence of operative time and blood loss on surgical margins and functional outcomes for laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective analysis. Cent European J Urol 2022; 74:503-515. [PMID: 35083069 PMCID: PMC8771133 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2021.0177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2021] [Revised: 08/22/2021] [Accepted: 11/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction The aim of this article was to analyze whether operative time and blood loss during radical prostatectomy (RP) can significantly influence surgical margins (SM) status and post-operative functional outcomes. Material and methods We prospectively analyzed prostate cancer (PC) patients undergoing RP, using robot-assisted (RARP) or laparoscopic (LRP) procedures. Blood loss was defined using the variation in hemoglobin (Hb, g/dl) values from the day before surgery and no later than 4 hours after surgery. Results From a whole population of 413 cases considered for RP, 67% underwent LRP and 33.0% RARP. Positive SM (SM+) were found in 33.9% of cases. Mean surgical operative time was 172.3 ±76 min (range 49–485), whereas blood loss was 2.3 ±1.2 g/dl (range 0.3–7.6). Operative time and blood loss at RP were not significantly correlated (r = -0.028275; p = 0.684). SM+ rates significantly (p = 0.002) varied by operative time; a higher SM+ rate was found in cases with an operative time <120 min (41.2%) and >240 min (53.4%). The risk of SM+ significantly increased 1.70 and 1.94 times in cases with an operative time <120 min and >240 min, respectively, independently to the surgical approach. The rate of erectile disfunction (ED) varied from 22.4% to 60.3% between <120 min and >240 min procedures (p = 0.001). According to blood loss, SM+ rates slightly but significantly (p = 0.032) varied; a higher rate of SM+ was found in cases with a Hb variation between 2–4 g/dl (35.9%). Conclusions Independently to the surgical approach, operative time, more than blood loss at RP, represents a significant variable able to influence SM status and post-operative ED.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Salciccia
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Davide Rosati
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Pietro Viscuso
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Vittorio Canale
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Emiliano Scarrone
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Marco Frisenda
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Roberta Catuzzi
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Martina Moriconi
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Asero
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Stefano Signore
- Department of Urology, S. Eugenio Hospital, ASL Rome 2, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Paolo Emiliozzi
- Department of Urology, San Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Antonio Carbone
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza Rome University, Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy
| | - Antonio Luigi Pastore
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza Rome University, Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy
| | - Andrea Fuschi
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza Rome University, Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy
| | - Giovanni Battista Di Pierro
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | - Gianna Mariotti
- Department of Urology, University Sapienza Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Gian Maria Busetto
- Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, University of Foggia, Policlinico Riuniti, Foggia, Italy
| | - Matteo Ferro
- Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Ettore De Berardinis
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Gian Piero Ricciuti
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Valeria Panebianco
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Fabio Massimo Magliocca
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Francesco Del Giudice
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Martina Maggi
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Alessandro Sciarra
- Department of Maternal-Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ferro M, de Cobelli O, Musi G, del Giudice F, Carrieri G, Busetto GM, Falagario UG, Sciarra A, Maggi M, Crocetto F, Barone B, Caputo VF, Marchioni M, Lucarelli G, Imbimbo C, Mistretta FA, Luzzago S, Vartolomei MD, Cormio L, Autorino R, Tătaru OS. Radiomics in prostate cancer: an up-to-date review. Ther Adv Urol 2022; 14:17562872221109020. [PMID: 35814914 PMCID: PMC9260602 DOI: 10.1177/17562872221109020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 53] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2021] [Accepted: 05/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common worldwide diagnosed malignancy in male population. The diagnosis, the identification of aggressive disease, and the post-treatment follow-up needs a more comprehensive and holistic approach. Radiomics is the extraction and interpretation of images phenotypes in a quantitative manner. Radiomics may give an advantage through advancements in imaging modalities and through the potential power of artificial intelligence techniques by translating those features into clinical outcome prediction. This article gives an overview on the current evidence of methodology and reviews the available literature on radiomics in PCa patients, highlighting its potential for personalized treatment and future applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matteo Ferro
- Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy, via Ripamonti 435 Milano, Italy
| | - Ottavio de Cobelli
- Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hematology-Oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Gennaro Musi
- Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hematology-Oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco del Giudice
- Department of Urology, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Carrieri
- Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
| | - Gian Maria Busetto
- Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
| | | | - Alessandro Sciarra
- Department of Urology, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Martina Maggi
- Department of Urology, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Felice Crocetto
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples ‘Federico II’, Naples, Italy
| | - Biagio Barone
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples ‘Federico II’, Naples, Italy
| | - Vincenzo Francesco Caputo
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples ‘Federico II’, Naples, Italy
| | - Michele Marchioni
- Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, G. d’Annunzio, University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy; Urology Unit, ‘SS. Annunziata’ Hospital, Chieti, Italy
- Department of Urology, ASL Abruzzo 2, Chieti, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Lucarelli
- Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, Urology, Andrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
| | - Ciro Imbimbo
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples ‘Federico II’, Naples, Italy
| | - Francesco Alessandro Mistretta
- Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Stefano Luzzago
- Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Mihai Dorin Vartolomei
- Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mures, Târgu Mures, Romania
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Luigi Cormio
- Urology and Renal Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
- Urology Unit, Bonomo Teaching Hospital, Foggia, Italy
| | | | - Octavian Sabin Tătaru
- Institution Organizing University Doctoral Studies, I.O.S.U.D., George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mures, Târgu Mures, Romania
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sciarra A, Frisenda M, Maggi M, Magliocca FM, Ciardi A, Panebianco V, Berardinis ED, Salciccia S, Di Pierro GB, Gentilucci A, Del Giudice F, Busetto GM, Tufano A. Prospective comparative trial on nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy using a robot-assisted versus laparoscopic technique: expectation versus satisfaction and impact on surgical margins. Cent European J Urol 2021; 74:169-177. [PMID: 34336234 PMCID: PMC8318028 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2021.0017.r3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2021] [Revised: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/19/2021] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction The aim of this study was to analyze whether differences exist in a population selected for a nerve-sparing (NS) procedure between robot-assisted (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and whether they can have an impact on surgical margins (SM) status. Material and methods This is a single center prospective comparative trial on prostate cancer patients submitted to a RARP-NS or LRP-NS. A self-administered questionnaire on expectations before surgery, and level of satisfaction after surgery was used. Results A total of 134 cases were included in our analysis. A higher percentage of capsular bulging was found in the RARP group, compared to the LRP group (p = 0.077). At biopsy, the percentage of positive cores and multifocality were higher in the RARP group (p = 0.005). Positive SM (SM+) rate was higher in the RARP, than in LRP group (p = 0.046). On univariable analysis, the risk of SM+ increased 1.95 times using RARP when compared with LRP. On multivariable analysis, the surgical approach did not maintain a significant predictive role in terms of risk for SM+. Expectations before surgery were mainly focused on oncological radicality, however in the RARP group a higher percentage of cases focused on sexual function recovery. Satisfaction after surgery was lower in the RARP than in the LRP group. Conclusions Comparing LRP-NS with RARP-NS in a high-volume single center, the expectation/satisfaction ratio is in favor of LRP. Worse oncologic preoperative characteristics in the RARP group may influence the higher incidence of SM+. However, the surgical approach does not result as a significant and independent factor able to influence SM positivity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandro Sciarra
- Department of Urology, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Marco Frisenda
- Department of Urology, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Martina Maggi
- Department of Urology, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Fabio Massimo Magliocca
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Antonio Ciardi
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Valeria Panebianco
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Anatomopathological Sciences, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Ettore De Berardinis
- Department of Urology, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Stefano Salciccia
- Department of Urology, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Gian Maria Busetto
- Department of Urology, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| | - Antonio Tufano
- Department of Urology, Sapienza Rome University, Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
SelectMDx and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate for Men Undergoing Primary Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective Assessment in a Multi-Institutional Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13092047. [PMID: 33922626 PMCID: PMC8122883 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13092047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2021] [Revised: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/20/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing as the sole indication for prostate biopsy lacks specificity, resulting in overdiagnosis of indolent prostate cancer (PCa) and missing clinically significant PCa (csPCa). SelectMDx is a biomarker-based risk score to assess urinary HOXC6 and DLX1 mRNA expression combined with traditional clinical risk factors. The aim of this prospective multi-institutional study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of SelectMDx and its association with multiparametric magnetic resonance (mpMRI) when predicting PCa in prostate biopsies. Overall, 310 consecutive subjects were included. All patients underwent mpMRI and SelectMDx prior to prostate biopsy. SelectMDx and mpMRI showed sensitivity and specificity of 86.5% vs. 51.9%, and 73.8% vs. 88.3%, respectively, in predicting PCa at biopsy, and 87.1% vs. 61.3%, and 63.7% vs. 83.9%, respectively, in predicting csPCa at biopsy. SelectMDx was revealed to be a good predictor of PCa, while with regards to csPCa detection, it was demonstrated to be less effective, showing results similar to mpMRI. With analysis of strategies assessed to define the best diagnostic strategy to avoid unnecessary biopsy, SelectMDx appeared to be a reliable pathway after an initial negative mpMRI. Thus, biopsy could be proposed for all cases of mpMRI PI-RADS 4-5 score, and to those with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 1-3 score followed by a positive SelectMDx.
Collapse
|