1
|
Liu M, Xie Z, Tang W, Liang G, Zhao Z, Wu T. Advanced prostate cancer diagnosed by bone metastasis biopsy immediately after initial negative prostate biopsy: a case report and literature review. Front Oncol 2024; 14:1365969. [PMID: 38800391 PMCID: PMC11116681 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1365969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 04/23/2024] [Indexed: 05/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is a prevalent male malignancy that originates in the epithelial cells of the prostate. In terms of incidence and mortality of malignant tumors in men, PCa ranks second and fifth globally and first and third among men in Europe and the United States, respectively. These figures have gradually increased in recent years. The primary modalities used to diagnose PCa include prostate-specific antigen (PSA), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and prostate puncture biopsy. Among these techniques, prostate puncture biopsy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of PCa; however, this method carries the potential for missed diagnoses. The preoperative evaluation of the patient in this study suggested advanced PCa. However, the initial prostate puncture biopsy was inconsistent with the preoperative diagnosis, and instead of waiting for a repeat puncture of the prostate primary, we performed a biopsy of the rib metastasis, which was later diagnosed as advanced PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Zeju Zhao
- Department of Urology, The Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, Guizhou, China
| | - Tao Wu
- Department of Urology, The Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, Guizhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Frozen section utilization to omit systematic biopsy in diagnosing high risk prostate cancer. Sci Rep 2022; 12:14461. [PMID: 36002475 PMCID: PMC9402539 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18186-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2022] [Accepted: 08/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
The current guidelines for targeted prostate biopsy recommend an additional systematic biopsy regardless of clinical risk assessment.
To evaluate frozen section biopsy utilization in targeted prostate biopsy to omit systematic biopsies in cases of positive frozen section results of patients with clinical features suggestive of high-risk prostate cancer. In this prospective, single-center study, we enrolled patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 lesion on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with clinical evidence suggestive of high-risk prostate cancer (either an extracapsular extension or prostate-specific antigen level > 20 ng/ml). All patients underwent 2–4 core targeted biopsies utilizing frozen section biopsy with immediate results, allowing patients with a positive result to omit a systematic biopsy. In case of a negative result, additional systematic biopsies were performed. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of targeted biopsy. Patient demographics, clinical variables were analyzed using SPSS version 20. Sixty-six patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 63 patients were diagnosed with cancer without the need for an additional systematic biopsy. Three patients were non-diagnostic with target biopsy alone. Hence an additional systematic biopsy was performed. Two of these patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer and one tested negative for cancer. In this report we looked into the necessity of taking a routine systematic biopsy in patients with high risk features of prostate cancer. We found that utilizing frozen section biopsy for targeted biopsy reduces unneccessary systematic biopsy in 97% of cases and still provides a means for systematic biopsy when targeted biopsy alone fails to make the diagnosis.
Collapse
|
3
|
Qu LG, Jack G, Perera M, Evans M, Evans S, Bolton D, Papa N. Impact of delay from transperineal biopsy to radical prostatectomy upon objective measures of cancer control. Asian J Urol 2021; 9:170-176. [PMID: 35509478 PMCID: PMC9051344 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2021.08.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2020] [Revised: 04/17/2021] [Accepted: 05/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Treatment delays in prostate cancer have been characterised, although not explicitly in men undergoing transperineal prostate biopsies. We aimed to determine if delays to radical prostatectomy correlate with adverse outcomes using a contemporary population-based cohort of men diagnosed by transperineal biopsies. Methods This study analysed men with prostate cancer of the International Society for Urological Pathology grade group ≥2, diagnosed by transperineal prostate biopsies who underwent prostatectomy, using the prospectively data from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2018 Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria. Data were analysed according to stratified demographic and disease characteristics. Time intervals from biopsy (28, 60, 90, 120, and 270 days) were compared using odds ratios and regression analyses for proportion of upgrading, early biochemical recurrence, pT3 disease at prostatectomy, and positive surgical margins. Results In total, 2008 men were analysed. There were 306 (16.7%) men with upgrading, 151 (8.4%) with biochemical recurrence, 1068 (54.1%) with pT3 disease, and 464 (23.1%) with positive surgical margins (percentages excluded patients with missing data). All adverse outcomes studied were significantly associated with higher prostate-specific antigen and grade at diagnosis. Delays of 120–270 days did not adversely alter the incidence of Gleason upgrading, pT3, or recurrence. Delays (most frequent 60–89 days, 28%) were associated with positive surgical margins but not monotonically. Regression modelling demonstrated no increased likelihood of most adverse outcomes for up to 270 days. Conclusion Men with prostate cancer of grade group ≥2 diagnosed through transperineal biopsy may wait up to 270 days for a prostatectomy without a greater likelihood of upgrading, pT3 disease, positive surgical margins, or biochemical recurrence.
Collapse
|
4
|
Mazzone E, Stabile A, Pellegrino F, Basile G, Cignoli D, Cirulli GO, Sorce G, Barletta F, Scuderi S, Bravi CA, Cucchiara V, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Montorsi F, Briganti A. Positive Predictive Value of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 2020; 4:697-713. [PMID: 33358543 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2020] [Revised: 11/26/2020] [Accepted: 12/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT The variability of the positive predictive value (PPV) represents a significant factor affecting the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). OBJECTIVE To analyze published studies reporting mpMRI PPV and the reasons behind the variability of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates on targeted biopsies (TBx) according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 categories. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A search of PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases, from January 2015 to June 2020, was conducted. The primary and secondary outcomes were to evaluate the PPV of PI-RADS version 2 in detecting csPCa and any prostate cancer (PCa), respectively. Individual authors' definitions for csPCa and PI-RADS thresholds for positive mpMRI were accepted. Detection rates, used as a surrogate of PPV, were pooled using random-effect models. Preplanned subgroup analyses tested PPV after stratification for PI-RADS scores, previous biopsy status, TBx technique, and number of sampled cores. PPV variation over cancer prevalence was evaluated. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Fifty-six studies, with a total of 16 537 participants, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The PPV of suspicious mpMRI for csPCa was 40% (95% confidence interval 36-43%), with large heterogeneity between studies (I2 94%, p < 0.01). PPV increased according to PCa prevalence. In subgroup analyses, PPVs for csPCa were 13%, 40%, and 69% for, respectively, PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 (p < 0.001). TBx missed 6%, 6%, and 5% of csPCa in PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions, respectively. In biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy groups, PPVs for csPCa were 42% and 32%, respectively (p = 0.005). Study design, TBx technique, and number of sampled cores did not affect PPV. CONCLUSIONS Our meta-analysis underlines that the PPV of mpMRI is strongly dependent on the disease prevalence, and that the main factors affecting PPV are PI-RADS version 2 scores and prior biopsy status. A substantially low PPV for PI-RADS 3 lesions was reported, while it was still suboptimal in PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions. Lastly, even if the added value of a systematic biopsy for csPCa is relatively low, this rate can improve patient risk assessment and staging. PATIENT SUMMARY Targeted biopsy of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions should be considered carefully in light of additional individual risk assessment corroborating the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. On the contrary, the positive predictive value of highly suspicious lesions is not high enough to omit systematic prostate sampling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elio Mazzone
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
| | - Armando Stabile
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Pellegrino
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Basile
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Daniele Cignoli
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Ottone Cirulli
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Gabriele Sorce
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Barletta
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Simone Scuderi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Carlo Andrea Bravi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Vito Cucchiara
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicola Fossati
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
mpMRI-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Curr Opin Urol 2020; 30:711-719. [PMID: 32732624 DOI: 10.1097/mou.0000000000000801] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW We aimed to compare the accuracy of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnosis by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB) in men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa). RECENT FINDINGS In biopsy-naïve patients, MRI-TB was more accurate to identify csPCa than SB. However, when comparing specifically MRI-TB versus transperineal (SB), we did not find any difference. Furthermore, in a repeat biopsy scenario, MRI-TB found more csPCa than SB as well. Finally, postanalysis comparing combined biopsy (SB plus MRI-TB) suggests that the later alone may play a role in both scenarios for identifying csPCa. SUMMARY MRI-TB found more csPCa than SB in patients with suspected PCa in both scenarios, naïve and repeat biopsies, but more studies comparing those methods are warranted before any recommendation on this topic.
Collapse
|