1
|
Kong M, Lee L, Mulcahy K, Rajesh A. A single centre service evaluation of the pre-biopsy mpMRI pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL UROLOGY 2022. [DOI: 10.1177/20514158211065946] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Aim: To study the efficacy and impact of the local pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis. Methods: In this tertiary centre, 570 patients had prostate mpMRI across a 6-month period in 2019. A total of 511 patients met inclusion criteria for retrospective analysis. MRI reporting used the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1. These were assessed alongside histological outcomes and diagnostic times. PI-RADS ⩾ 3 were recommended for biopsy consideration. Gleason scoring ⩾ 3 + 4 and 3 + 3 were used to define clinically and non-clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa and nsPCa), respectively. Results: Overall prostate cancer prevalence was 40% (204/511, csPCa in 31.1%) with an overall biopsy avoidance of 32.1% (164/511). Around 69.7% (356/511) scored PI-RADS ⩾ 3 and 30.3% (155/511) scored PI-RADS 1–2. About 22.6% (35/155) of PI-RADS 1–2 patients proceeded to biopsy, demonstrating a negative predictive value of 91.43% for csPCa. For PI-RADS ⩾ 3 patients, 63.4% (197/312) of those biopsied had cancer (Gleason ⩾ 3 + 3), with 50% (156/312) demonstrating csPCa. Around 76.7% (102/133) of PI-RADS 5, 35.3% (48/136) of PI-RADS 4, 14.0% (6/43) of PI-RADS 3 and 8.6% (3/35) of PI-RADS 1–2 scores demonstrated csPCa. Overall median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density was 0.15 ng/mL2 (IQR: 0.10–0.27/mL2). PSA density were significantly different across PI-RADS cohorts ( H = 118.8, p < 0.0001) and across all three biopsy outcomes ( H = 99.72, p < 0.0001). Only 34.3% (119/347) of biopsied patients met the NHS 28-day standard. MRI acquisition and reporting met the 14-day local standard in 96.1% (491/511). The biopsy was the most delayed component with a median of 20 days (IQR: 8–43). Conclusion: Pre-biopsy mpMRI with PI-RADS scoring safely avoided biopsy in almost one-third (32.1%) of patients. The use of PSA-density in risk stratifying PI-RADS 3 lesions has informed local practice in the period 2020–2021, with implementation of a PSA-density threshold of 0.12 ng/mL2. Biopsy scheduling issues and anaesthetic requirements need to be overcome to improve diagnostic waiting times. Level of evidence: 2
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Kong
- Radiology Department, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK
| | - Louise Lee
- Radiology Department, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, UK
| | - Kevin Mulcahy
- Radiology Department, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, UK
| | - Arumugam Rajesh
- Radiology Department, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Morote J, Schwartzmann I, Celma A, Roche S, de Torres IM, Mast R, Semidey ME, Regis L, Santamaria A, Planas J, Trilla E. The current recommendation for the management of isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. BJU Int 2021; 129:627-633. [PMID: 34375498 DOI: 10.1111/bju.15568] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2021] [Revised: 07/15/2021] [Accepted: 08/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To analyse the current predictive value of isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection in repeat biopsies. PATIENTS AND METHODS A cohort of 293 men with isolated HGPIN detected in previous biopsies performed without multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and who underwent repeat biopsy within 1 to 3 years, was analysed. Pre-repeat biopsy mpMRI and guided biopsies to suspicious lesions (Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] ≥3) and/or and systematic biopsies were performed. Persistent prostate cancer (PCa) suspicion, defined as sustained serum prostate-specific antigen level >4 ng/mL and/or abnormal digital rectal examination, was present in 248 men (84.6%), and was absent in 45 men (15.4%). A control group of 190 men who had no previous HGPIN, atypical small acinar proliferation or HGPIN with atypia who were scheduled to undergo repeat biopsy due to persistent PCa suspicion were also analysed. csPCa was defined as tumours of Grade Group ≥2. RESULTS In the subset of 45 men with isolated HGPIN, in whom PCa suspicion disappeared, only one csPCa (2.2%) and one insignificant PCa (iPCa) were detected. csPCa was detected in 34.7% of men with persistent PCa suspicion and previous HGPIN, and in 28.4% of those without previous HGPIN (P =0.180). iPCa was detected in 12.1% and 6.3%, respectively (P =0.039). Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of csPCa detection was not predicted by previous HGPIN: odds ratio (OR) 1.369 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.894-2.095; P =0.149); however, previous HGPIN increased the risk of iPCa detection: OR 2.043 (95% CI 1.016-4.109; P =0.006). CONCLUSION The risk of csPCa in men with isolated HGPIN, in whom PCa suspicion disappears, is extremely low. Moreover, in those men in whom PCa suspicion persists, the risk of csPCa is not influenced by the previous finding of HGPIN. However, previous HGPIN increases the risk of iPCa detection. Therefore, repeat prostate biopsy should not be recommended solely because of a previous HGPIN.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan Morote
- Department of Urology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.,Prostate Cancer Research Group, Vall d´Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Anna Celma
- Department of Urology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.,Prostate Cancer Research Group, Vall d´Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Sarai Roche
- Department of Radiology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Inés M de Torres
- Prostate Cancer Research Group, Vall d´Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.,Department of Pathology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Richard Mast
- Department of Radiology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Maria E Semidey
- Prostate Cancer Research Group, Vall d´Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.,Department of Pathology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Lucas Regis
- Department of Urology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.,Prostate Cancer Research Group, Vall d´Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Anna Santamaria
- Prostate Cancer Research Group, Vall d´Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Jacques Planas
- Department of Urology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.,Prostate Cancer Research Group, Vall d´Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Enrique Trilla
- Department of Urology, Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.,Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tsampoukas G, Manolas V, Brown D, Dellis A, Deliveliotis K, Moussa M, Papatsoris A. Atypical small acinar proliferation and its significance in pathological reports in modern urological times. Asian J Urol 2021; 9:12-17. [PMID: 35198392 PMCID: PMC8841244 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2021.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2020] [Revised: 05/11/2020] [Accepted: 09/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Atypical small acinar proliferation is a histopathological diagnosis of unspecified importance in prostate needle-biopsy reports, suggestive but not definitive for cancer. The terminology corresponds to some uncertainty in the biopsy report, as the finding might represent an underlying non-cancerous pathology mimicking cancer or an under-sampled prostate cancer site. Therefore, traditional practice favors an immediate repeat biopsy. However, in modern urological times, the need of urgent repeat biopsy is being challenged by some authors as in the majority of cases, the grade of cancer found in subsequent biopsy is reported to be low or the disease to be non-significant. On the other hand, high risk disease cannot be excluded, whereas no clinical or pathological factors can predict the final outcome. In this review, we discuss the significance of the diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation in the biopsy report, commenting on its importance in modern urological practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Georgios Tsampoukas
- Department of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK
- U-merge Ltd. (Urology for Emerging Countries), London, UK
- Corresponding author. U-merge Ltd. (Urology for Emerging Countries), London, UK.
| | - Victor Manolas
- Department of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK
| | - Dominic Brown
- Department of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK
- Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, UK
| | - Athanasios Dellis
- U-merge Ltd. (Urology for Emerging Countries), London, UK
- Department of Urology and General Surgery, Areteion Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Konstantinos Deliveliotis
- 2nd Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Mohamad Moussa
- Chairman of Surgery & Urology Department, Lebanese University & Zahraa Hospital, University Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Athanasios Papatsoris
- U-merge Ltd. (Urology for Emerging Countries), London, UK
- 2nd Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Oderda M, Rosazza M, Agnello M, Barale M, Calleris G, Daniele L, Delsedime L, Falcone M, Faletti R, Filippini C, Giordano A, Marquis A, Marra G, Pacchioni D, Gontero P. Natural history of widespread high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation: should we rebiopsy them all? Scand J Urol 2021; 55:129-134. [PMID: 33410348 DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2020.1866659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the premalignant potential of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP). METHODS Patients diagnosed with monofocal HGPIN (mHGPIN), widespread HGPIN (≥4 cores, wHGPIN) and/or ASAP who underwent at least one rebiopsy during their follow-up, were enrolled. All enrollment biopsies underwent central pathologic revision. Risks for PCa were estimated using Fine and Gray method for competing risk. RESULTS Pathologic revision changed the original diagnosis in 32.3% of cases. Among 336 cases enrolled, PCa was diagnosed in 164 (48.8%), and more specifically in 20 (30.3%) mHGPIN, 10 (34.5%) wHGPIN, 101 (54.0%) ASAP, and 33 (61.1%) HGPIN + ASAP (mean follow-up 124 months). Most PCa were Gleason score 6(3 + 3) (51.0%) and 7(3 + 4) (34.3%). On multivariate analysis, HGPIN + ASAP (HR 2.76, p < 0.001) and ASAP alone (HR 2.41, p < 0.001) were the only lesions significantly associated with PCa development. Of all cancers detected, 64.3% were at first rebiopsy. A rebiopsy performed within 3 months after ASAP diagnosis had a 45% chance of finding PCa. At Kaplan-Meier survival curves, median PCa-free survival was 48.1 months for HGPIN + ASAP and 64.9 months for ASAP (p 0.0005 at Log-rank test). At 1 year, 70% of HGPIN + ASAP, 73% of ASAP, 89% of wHGPIN, and 84% of mHGPIN were PCa-free. CONCLUSION The diagnosis of ASAP and HGPIN strongly relies on the expertise of dedicated uro-pathologists. Finding of ASAP is a strong risk factor for a subsequent PCa diagnosis, advising a rebiopsy, possibly within 3 months. m/wHGPIN should not be routinely rebiopsied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Oderda
- Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Matteo Rosazza
- Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Marco Agnello
- Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Maurizio Barale
- Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Giorgio Calleris
- Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Daniele
- Division of Pathology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, Turin, Italy
| | - Luisa Delsedime
- Division of Pathology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, Turin, Italy
| | - Marco Falcone
- Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Riccardo Faletti
- Division of Radiology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | | | - Andrea Giordano
- Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Alessandro Marquis
- Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Giancarlo Marra
- Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Donatella Pacchioni
- Division of Pathology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, Turin, Italy
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Division of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza - Molinette Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Barth BK, Rupp NJ, Cornelius A, Nanz D, Grobholz R, Schmidtpeter M, Wild PJ, Eberli D, Donati OF. Diagnostic Accuracy of a MR Protocol Acquired with and without Endorectal Coil for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Study. Curr Urol 2019; 12:88-96. [PMID: 31114466 DOI: 10.1159/000489425] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2018] [Accepted: 05/29/2018] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic accuracy of a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) protocol for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without en-dorectal coil (ERC). Materials This study was approved by the regional ethics committee. Between 2014 and 2015, 33 patients (median age 51.3 years; range 42.1-77.3 years) who underwent prostate-MRI at 3T scanners at 2 different institutions, acquired with (mpMRIERC) and without (mpMRIPPA) ERC and who received radical prostatectomy, were included in this retrospective study. Two expert readers (R1, R2) attributed a PI-RADS version 2 score for the most suspect (i. e. index) lesion for mpMRIPPA and mpMRIERC. Sensitivity and positive predictive value for detection of index lesions were assessed using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Differences between groups were tested using the McNemar test. Whole-mount histopathology served as reference standard. Results On a quadrant-basis cumulative sensitivity ranged between 0.61-0.67 and 0.76-0.88 for mpMRIPPA and mpMRIERC protocols, respectively (p > 0.05). Cumulative positive predictive value ranged between 0.80-0.81 and 0.89-0.91 for mpMRIPPA and mpMRIERC protocols, respectively. The differences were not statistically significant for R1 (p = 0.267) or R2 (p = 0.508). Conclusion Our results suggest that there may be no significant differences for detection of prostate cancer between images acquired with and without an ERC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Borna K Barth
- Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Zurich
| | - Niels J Rupp
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, Zurich
| | - Alexander Cornelius
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich
| | - Daniel Nanz
- Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Zurich.,Department of Radiology, Zurich
| | | | - Martin Schmidtpeter
- Swiss Center for Musculoskeletal Imaging, Balgrist Campus AG, Zurich.,Department of Urology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau
| | - Peter J Wild
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, Zurich.,Urologiepraxis Lenzburg, Lenzburg, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Eberli
- Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Olivio F Donati
- Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Zurich
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Pathological Assessment of Prostate Cancer. Urol Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-42603-7_71-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
7
|
Pathological Assessment of Prostate Cancer. Urol Oncol 2019. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-42623-5_71] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|