How significant is upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology while discussing less invasive treatment options?

Comparison of MRI-Based Staging and Pathologic Staging for Predicting Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND. Currently most clinical models for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP) incorporate staging information from RP specimens, creating a gap in preoperative risk assessment. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare the utility of presurgical staging information from MRI and postsurgical staging information from RP pathology in predicting BCR in patients with PCa. METHODS. This retrospective study included 604 patients (median age, 60 years) with PCa who underwent prostate MRI before RP from June 2007 to December 2018. A single genitourinary radiologist assessed MRI examinations for extraprostatic extension (EPE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) during clinical interpretations. The utility of EPE and SVI on MRI and RP pathology for BCR prediction was assessed through Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses. Established clinical BCR prediction models, including the University of California San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (UCSF-CAPRA) model and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical (CAPRA-S) model, were evaluated in a subset of 374 patients with available Gleason grade groups from biopsy and RP pathology; two CAPRA-MRI models (CAPRA-S model with modifications to replace RP pathologic staging features with MRI staging features) were also assessed. RESULTS. Univariable predictors of BCR included EPE on MRI (HR = 3.6), SVI on MRI (HR = 4.4), EPE on RP pathology (HR = 5.0), and SVI on RP pathology (HR = 4.6) (all p < .001). Three-year BCR-free survival (RFS) rates for patients without versus with EPE were 84% versus 59% for MRI and 89% versus 58% for RP pathology, and 3-year RFS rates for patients without versus with SVI were 82% versus 50% for MRI and 83% versus 54% for RP histology (all p < .001). For patients with T3 disease on RP pathology, 3-year RFS rates were 67% and 41% for patients without and with T3 disease on MRI. AUCs of CAPRA models, including CAPRA-MRI models, ranged from 0.743 to 0.778. AUCs were not significantly different between CAPRA-S and CAPRA-MRI models (p > .05). RFS rates were significantly different between low- and intermediate-risk groups for only CAPRA-MRI models (80% vs 51% and 74% vs 44%; both p < .001). CONCLUSION. Presurgical MRI-based staging features perform comparably to postsurgical pathologic staging features for predicting BCR. CLINICAL IMPACT. MRI staging can preoperatively identify patients at high BCR risk, helping to inform early clinical decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00026884 and NCT02594202.

IVIM Parameters on MRI Could Predict ISUP Risk Groups of Prostate Cancers on Radical Prostatectomy

Purpose

To elucidate the usefulness of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)/apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameters in preoperative risk stratification using International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grades.

Materials and Methods

Forty-five prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) after prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) were included. The ISUP grades were categorized into low-risk (I-II) and high-risk (III-V) groups, and the concordance between the preoperative and postoperative grades was analyzed. The largest region of interest (ROI) of the dominant tumor on each IVIM/ADC image was delineated to obtain its histogram values (i.e., minimum, mean, and kurtosis) of diffusivity (D), pseudodiffusivity (D*), perfusion fraction (PF), and ADC. Multivariable logistic regression analysis of the IVIM/ADC parameters without and with preoperative ISUP grades were performed to identify predictors for the postoperative high-risk group.

Results

Thirty-two (71.1%) of 45 patients had concordant preoperative and postoperative ISUP grades. D_mean, D*_kurtosis, PF_kurtosis, ADC_min, and ADC_mean were significantly associated with the postoperative ISUP risk group (all p < 0.05). D_mean and D*_kurtosis (model I, both p < 0.05) could predict the postoperative ISUP high-risk group with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.842 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.726-0.958. The addition of D*_kurtosis to the preoperative ISUP grade (model II) may enhance prediction performance, with an AUC of 0.907 (95% CI 0.822-0.992).

Conclusions

The postoperative ISUP risk group could be predicted by D_mean and D*_kurtosis from mpMRI, especially D*_kurtosis. Obtaining the biexponential IVIM parameters is important for better risk stratification for PCa.

Clinical significance and risk factors of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade upgrading in prostate cancer patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to investigate the clinical significance and risk factors of upgrading in the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group System in men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer.

METHODS

A total of 583 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer by systematic biopsy were treated with RARP without neoadjuvant therapy from November 2011 to December 2018. Clinicopathological data were obtained from our clinical records. ISUP grade upgrading (IGU) was defined as 'ISUP grade in prostatectomy specimen determined to be higher than that in the biopsy specimen'. Clinicopathological factors, including age, PSA, prostate volume at biopsy (PV), PSA density, clinical stage, body mass index (BMI), interval from biopsy to prostatectomy, maximum percentage of cancer involvement per core (%CI), total number of biopsy cores, percentage of cancer positive biopsy cores (%PC), and sampling density were analyzed to detect potential risk factors of IGU. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were calculated to analyze the effect of IGU on cancer prognosis.

RESULTS

In univariate analysis, BMI was a positive predictor of IGU, while %CI, %PC, and sampling density were negative predictors of IGU. BMI and %PC were statistically significant predictors of IGU in multivariate analysis. For cases diagnosed as ISUP grade group 2 or higher at biopsy, there was a significant difference in BCR rates between cases with and without IGU.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from our cohort showed that elements of both high-grade cancer risk (such as BMI) and sampling efficiency (such as %PC) contribute to IGU. Excluding cases diagnosed as ISUP grade group 1 at biopsy, BCR-free rates were significantly worse in cases with IGU, highlighting the need for more accurate pathological diagnosis at biopsy.

How does a prebiopsy mri approach for prostate cancer diagnosis affect prostatectomy upgrade rates?

BACKGROUND

To compare the pathologic upgrade and downgrade rates after radical prostatectomy (RP) between patients diagnosed by prebiopsy prostate MRI followed by a combination of systematic and fusion biopsy (ComBx) versus patients undergoing systematic biopsy only (SBx).

METHODS

A retrospective review of men undergoing RP at our institution between Jan 2014 and Mar 2020 was performed. These patients were separated into two independent cohorts based on two approaches: Patients receiving prebiopsy prostate MRI during initial evaluation and those who did not receive MRI. Patients with positive MRI findings underwent subsequent ComBx to confirm diagnosis while those without MRI underwent standard trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided systematic 12-core biopsy (SBx). Primary outcomes were rates of pathological upgrade (prostatectomy grade higher than grade determined at time of biopsy) and downgrade (prostatectomy grade lower than biopsy grade).

RESULTS

A total of 213 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, 91 diagnosed via a prebiopsy MRI and ComBx approach and 122 diagnosed by a traditional SBx approach, were included in the study. There was no significant difference between age, PSA, or positive family history between the two cohorts. Of the 91 patients who received prebiopsy MRI, 88 patients were determined to have a PIRADS 4 or 5 lesion. Patients who received MRI and subsequent ComBx had a lower rate of any pathological upgrade after RP (9.89% vs. 22.13%, P = 0.018) without a significant difference in pathologic downgrade rate (28.57% vs. 18.85%, P = 0.095). On multivariable logistic regression, receiving prebiopsy MRI during initial evaluation was the single negative independent predictor of pathologic upgrade (OR = 0.23, P = 0.017). A prebiopsy MRI approach was also the single predictor of pathologic downgrade (OR = 3.13, P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving prebiopsy MRI during prostate cancer evaluation were less likely to have their PCa upgraded. Furthermore, although diagnosis via MRI and subsequent ComBx was associated with an increased rate of downgrades after RP, relatively few resulted in a downgrade from clinically significant to clinically insignificant cancer.

Prognostic Value of Gleason Score at Positive Surgical Margin in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The individual clinical significance of a positive surgical margin (PSM) after radical prostatectomy has remained controversial. Studies have suggested that the Gleason grade (GG) at the PSM could improve predictive accuracy and decision making. Our objective was to systematically review the reported data to determine the effect of the GG at the PSM on the prognosis after radical prostatectomy. A systematic review was conducted by searching MEDLINE/PubMed for studies reported by June 2019 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review statement. The keywords used included prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, positive surgical margin, Gleason score, and/or Gleason grade. After a systematic literature review, 10 studies were included, comprising 14,108 patients, of whom 2454 (17.4%) had a PSM and 428 (14%) eventually experienced biochemical recurrence (BCR) within a median follow-up of 18 to 156 months. Data on neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy were not estimable. In a meta-analysis, GG4 at PSM was significantly associated with BCR compared with GG3 (pooled hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-2.28; z = 6.16). The Cochrane Q test (χ² = 5.88; P = .318) and I² test (I² = 15.0%) showed that no significant heterogeneity was present. GG4 at a PSM is a feature of biologically and clinically aggressive prostate cancer that is associated with a significant increase risk of BCR. GG at PSM should be recorded in each pathological report. Given this adverse prognostic value patients with GG4 at the PSM should be considered for multimodal therapy such as radiotherapy.

Concordance of "Case Level" Global, Highest, and Largest Volume Cancer Grade Group on Needle Biopsy Versus Grade Group on Radical Prostatectomy

The practice of assigning "case level" biopsy Grade Group (GG) or Gleason Score is variable. To our knowledge, a comparison of the concordance of different biopsy "case level" GG with the prostatectomy GG has not been done in a post-2005 prostate cancer cohort. We evaluated the GG in 2527 patients who had biopsy and radical prostatectomy performed at our institution between 2005 and 2014. We compared the agreements, the upgrades, and the downgrades of 3 different "case level" biopsy GG, with the final GG: (1) Global GG (sum of most prevalent and highest Gleason grade in any biopsy part/site-specific specimen); (2) Highest GG (found in any biopsy part/site-specific specimen); and (3) Largest Volume Cancer GG (found in any biopsy part/site-specific specimen). The concordance between the biopsy and the final GG were evaluated using weighted kappa (κ) coefficient. The biopsy Global GG, Highest GG, and Largest Volume Cancer GG were the same as the final GG in 60.4%, 57.1%, and 54.3% cases, respectively (weighted κ values: 0.49, 0.48, and 0.44, respectively). When final GG contained tertiary 5, the overall GG agreement decreased: Global GG 41.5%, Highest GG 40.3%, and Largest Volume Cancer GG 37.1% (weighted κ: 0.22, 0.21, and 0.18, respectively). A subset analysis for cases in which the biopsy Global GG and Highest GG were different (n=180) showed an agreement of 62.4% (weighted κ: 0.37) and 18.8% (weighted κ: 0.16), respectively. In patients without a tertiary Gleason pattern on radical prostatectomy, the Global GG and the Highest GG were identical in 92.4% of biopsies. Assigning a biopsy "case level" Global GG versus using the Highest GG and the Largest Volume Cancer GG resulted in comparable and slightly improved agreement with the final GG in this cohort.

Are TRUS-guided prostate biopsies in clinical practice robust enough to make a correct assessment of the surgical strategy in prostatectomies? Poor correlation between preoperative prostate biopsies and postoperative specimens

Objective: TRUS-guided prostatic biopsies are the mainstay procedure to diagnose prostatic cancer. The aim was to investigate how accurate and reliable these biopsies are by comparing them with the final pathology results after prostatectomy.Materials and methods: One hundred consecutive patients diagnosed with localized prostatic cancer using this technique and who subsequently underwent a radical prostatectomy in Västerbotten County were included in this study. From the pathological-anatomical diagnosis (PAD) of core needle biopsies, data was extracted on the location of the tumour within the prostate, the tumour volume and the Gleason score, and compared with the characteristics of the prostatectomy specimen. The frequency and type of deviation between the pre-operative and post-operative examinations was recorded.Results: In 95% of the cases there was a poor correlation between the pre-operative and post-operative pathological reports. In the final report, 48% had a higher Gleason score and 88% had deviations in localization when compared with the information from the biopsies. If known prior to surgery, a total of 104 of these deviations might have had a significant impact on the surgical strategy.Conclusions: The pre-operative biopsies in this setting rarely match the final prostate PAD results (5%). The most common deviations were in localization and in Gleason score, where the majority consisted of a higher Gleason score and/or tumour presence in a previously unknown location. This information, if known prior to surgery, might have altered the treatment strategy and ultimately the outcome of the treatment.

Is There Still a Need for Repeated Systematic Biopsies in Patients with Previous Negative Biopsies in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies of the Prostate?

BACKGROUND

The role of targeted prostate biopsies (TBs) in patients with cancer suspicious lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) following negative systematic biopsies (SBs) is undebated. However, whether they should be combined with repeated SBs remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the value of repeated SBs in addition to TBs in patients with a prior negative SB and a persistent suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective study as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted between 2014 and 2017, including 665 men with a prior negative SB and a persistent suspicion of PCa (suspicious digital rectal examination and/or prostate-specific antigen >4.0ng/ml).

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent 3T mpMRI according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2. Patients with PI-RADS ≥3 were randomized 1:1:1 for three TB techniques: MRI-TRUS fusion TB (FUS-TB), cognitive registration fusion TB (COG-TB), or in-bore MRI TB. FUS-TB and COG-TB were combined with repeated SBs.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as Gleason ≥3+4. Differences in detection rates of csPCa, clinically insignificant PCa (cisPCa), and overall PCa between TBs (FUS-TB and COG-TB) and repeated SBs were compared using McNemar's test.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In the 152 patients who underwent both TB and SB, PCa was detected by TB in 47% and by SB in 32% (p<0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0-22%). TB detected significantly more csPCa than SB (32% vs 16%; p<0.001, 95% CI: 11-25%). Clinically significant PCa was missed by TB in 1.3% (2/152). Combining SB and TB resulted in detection rate differences of 6.0% for PCa, 5.0% for cisPCa, and 1.0% for csPCa compared with TB alone.

CONCLUSIONS

In case of a persistent suspicion of PCa following a negative SB, TB detected significantly more csPCa cases than SB. The additional value of SB was limited, and only 1.3% of csPCa would have been missed when SB had been omitted.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated the role of systematic biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative systematic biopsies. MRI-targeted biopsies perform better in detecting prostate cancer in these patients. The value of repeated systematic biopsies is limited.

Prostate cancer upgrading or downgrading of biopsy Gleason scores at radical prostatectomy: prediction of "regression to the mean" using routine clinical features with correlating biochemical relapse rates

Recommendations for managing clinically localized prostate cancer are structured around clinical risk criteria, with prostate biopsy (PB) Gleason score (GS) being the most important factor. Biopsy to radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen upgrading/downgrading is well described, and is often the rationale for costly imaging or genomic studies. We present simple, no-cost analyses of clinical parameters to predict which GS 6 and GS 8 patients will change to GS 7 at prostatectomy. From May 2006 to December 2012, 1590 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). After exclusions, we identified a GS 6 cohort of 374 patients and a GS 8 cohort of 91 patients. During this era, >1000 additional patients were enrolled in an active surveillance (AS) program. For GS 6, 265 (70.9%) of 374 patients were upgraded, and the cohort included 183 (48.9%) patients eligible for AS by the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance Study (PRIAS) standards, of which 57.9% were upgraded. PB features that predicted a >90% chance of upgrading included ≥ 7 cores positive, maximum foci length ≥ 8 mm in any core, and total tumor involvement ≥ 30%. For GS 8, downgrading occurred in 46 (50.5%), which was significantly higher for single core versus multiple cores (80.4% vs 19.6%, P = 0.011). Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurred in 3.4% of GS 6 upgraded versus 0% nonupgraded, and in GS 8, 19.6% downgraded versus 42.2% nondowngraded. In counseling men with clinically localized prostate cancer, the odds of GS change should be presented, and certain men with high-volume GS 6 or low-volume GS 8 can be counseled with GS 7-based recommendations.

Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology: Is magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy more accurate?

Background: This study compared magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy (MRI-GB) and transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) with the final histology of the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen.

Methods: Our subjects were 229 patients with prostate cancer (PCa), proven histopathologically using MRI-GB or TRUS-GB, who underwent RP at our center between December 2015 and December 2016. The main group included 92 patients who underwent MRI-GB and the control group included 137 patients who underwent 12-core TRUS-GB. Histological findings for RP specimens were compared with those from biopsies. We also evaluated predictors of upgraded Gleason score (GS), using uni- and multivariate analyses.

Results: Upgraded GS between biopsy and RP specimen occurred to 22.7% (52/229) of the cohort overall. In univariate analysis, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) (P<0.001), prostate volume (PV) < 30 ml (P<0.001), biopsy modality (P=0.027), biopsy GS (P=0.032) and measured MRI lymph node metastasis (P=0.018) were prognostic factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed PV < 30 ml (P<0.001) and biopsy modality (P=0.001) were independent predictors of upgraded GS.

Conclusions: MRI-GB may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer detection in final histopathology with lower rate of upgraded GS than TRUS-GB. Also, PV < 30 ml and biopsy modality were independent predictors of upgraded GS.

Extreme Gleason Upgrading From Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy: A Population-based Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk factors associated with the odds of extreme Gleason upgrading at radical prostatectomy (RP) (defined as a Gleason prognostic group score increase of ≥2), we utilized a large, population-based cancer registry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiologic, and End Results database was queried (2010-2011) for all patients diagnosed with Gleason 3 + 3 or 3 + 4 on prostate needle biopsy. Available clinicopathologic factors and the odds of upgrading and extreme upgrading at RP were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 12,459 patients were identified, with a median age of 61 (interquartile range: 56-65) and a diagnostic prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 5.5 ng/mL (interquartile range: 4.3-7.5). Upgrading was observed in 34% of men, including 44% of 7402 patients with Gleason 3 + 3 and 19% of 5057 patients with Gleason 3 + 4 disease. Age, clinical stage, diagnostic PSA, and % prostate needle biopsy cores positive were independently associated with odds of any upgrading at RP. In baseline Gleason 3 + 3 disease, extreme upgrading was observed in 6%, with increasing age, diagnostic PSA, and >50% core positivity associated with increased odds. In baseline Gleason 3 + 4 disease, extreme upgrading was observed in 4%, with diagnostic PSA and palpable disease remaining predictive. Positive surgical margins were significantly higher in patients with extreme upgrading at RP (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Gleason upgrading at RP is common in this large population-based cohort, including extreme upgrading in a clinically significant portion.

Prostate biopsy concordance in a large population-based sample: a Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results study

AIMS

To use the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database in order to evaluate prostate biopsy concordance in a large population-based sample.

METHODS

We identified 34 195 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent a radical prostatectomy from 2010 to 2011. All patients also had to have both clinical and pathological Gleason scores available for analysis. The concordance of the biopsy Gleason score to the pathological Gleason score was analysed using the coefficient of agreement (κ). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine potential factors that may impact concordance of Gleason score.

RESULTS

Overall, the clinical and pathological Gleason scores matched in 55.4% of patients. The concordance rates were 55.3% for Gleason 6, 66.9% for Gleason 3+4, 42.9% for Gleason 4+3 and 24.8% for Gleason 8, with frequent downgrading to Gleason 7. The κ for Gleason score concordance was 0.36 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.37), indicating fair agreement. The weighted κ for Gleason score concordance was 0.51 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.52), indicating moderate agreement. Additionally, the Bowker tests of symmetry were highly significant (p<0.001), indicating that when discordant findings were present, pathological upgrading was more common than downgrading.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is, to our knowledge, the largest contemporary study of prostate biopsy concordance. We found that there continues to be significant Gleason migration both upward from biopsy Gleason 6 or 3+4 and downgrading from biopsy Gleason ≥8. Further studies are needed to better determine other potential genomic or biologic factors that may help increase the biopsy Gleason concordance.