Comparison of Post Biopsy Pathology and Post Radical Prostatectomy Pathology in Patients with Prostate Cancer Detected After Fusion Biopsy
Öz
Aims: To compare the post-radical prostatectomy (RP) final pathologies and post-biopsy pathologies of the patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) after fusion biopsy according to the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system.
Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, data of 182 patients who underwent fusion biopsy and concomitant systematic biopsy between January 2020 and August 2022 was reviewed. All these patients were biopsy naive with PIRADS-3 lesions according to the multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) imaging. A total of 89 patients with PCa detected by biopsy were included in the study. Age, PSA, PSA density, and lesion grades according to PI-RADS were analysed. The post-biopsy (fusion and systematic biopsy) pathology results of 60 patients who underwent RP were compared with the final pathology results after RP.
Results: Pathological results after fusion biopsy and RP were compared. The individual agreement between RP and fusion biopsy for each ISUP grade was moderate to almost excellent (0.558 to 0.848). When the overall agreement between RP and fusion biopsy was evaluated, the weighted kappa was calculated as 0.721 (95% CI: 0.577 to 0.865), which was determined as substantial significant agreement. On the other hand, the overall agreement between systematic biopsy and pathology results after RP was calculated as weighted kappa 0.544 (95% CI: 0.405 to 0.683) and this agreement was determined as moderate agreement.
Conclusion: Our study showed that the concordance between the pathology result after fusion biopsy and the final pathology after RP was higher than the standard TRUS prostate biopsy. We think this compliance is crucial in the regulation and follow-up of the treatment of the patients.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394-424.
- Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, Cookson MS, Gomella LG, Troyer D, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. The Journal of urology. 2013;189(6):2039-46.
- Ng TK, Vasilareas D, Mitterdorfer AJ, Maher PO, Lalak A. Prostate cancer detection with digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, transrectal ultrasonography and biopsy in clinical urological practice. BJU international. 2005;95(4):545-8.
- Hoffman RM. Clinical practice. Screening for prostate cancer. The New England journal of medicine. 2011;365(21):2013-9.
- Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-22.
- Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. 2018;378(19):1767-77.
- Schoots IG, Padhani AR, Rouvière O, Barentsz JO, Richenberg J. Analysis of Magnetic Resonance Imaging–directed Biopsy Strategies for Changing the Paradigm of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. European Urology Oncology. 2020;3(1):32-41.
- Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746-57.
- Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. European Urology. 2016;69(1):16-40.
- N. Mottet (Chair) P. Cornford, R.C.N. van den Bergh, E. Briers, D.Eberli, G.De Meerleer et al. . EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidlines on Prostate Cancer,EAU.2023.