ABSTRACT
Objetivos: Evaluar la precisión de las biopsias guiada y sistemática para la detección del cáncer de próstata (CP) y CP clínicamente significativo (CPCS) en la práctica diaria, analizando el requerimiento de biopsias sistemáticas adicionales en el momento de la biopsia guiada. Pacientes y métodos: De nuestra base de datos multicéntrica que incluye 2.115 pacientes sometidos a biopsia de fusión con el sistema Koelis(TM) entre 2010 y 2017, seleccionamos 1.119 pacientes que recibieron biopsias guiadas (una mediana de 3 por cada lesión), con posterior muestreo sistemático (12 a 14 núcleos). Se evaluó la tasa de detección de cáncer (TDC) global y clínicamente significativa de las biopsias de fusión de Koelis(TM), comparando la biopsia guiada con la sistemática. Como objetivo secundario, está la identificación de los predictores de detección de CP. Resultados: La TDC de la biopsia guiada fue del 48% para todos los tipos de cáncer y del 33% para el CPCS. El muestreo de próstata sistemático adicional mejoró la TDC global en un 15% y en un 12% para CPCS. Se detectó CP en el 35, 69 y 92% de los pacientes con lesiones calificadas como PI-RADS 3, 4 y 5, respectivamente. Una puntuación elevada de PI-RADS y un examen rectal digital positivo fueron factores predictores de CP, y la condición «biopsia naïve» se asoció con CPCS. Conclusión: En la práctica diaria, la biopsia guiada con Koelis(TM) logra una buena TDC para todos los CP y CPCS, y mejora significativamente con el muestreo sistemático posterior de la próstata. Los excelentes resultados de la biopsia por fusión se confirman también en pacientes naïve. La puntuación PI-RADS elevada y el examen rectal digital positivo están altamente asociados con la presencia de CP
Objectives: To assess the accuracy of targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in the everyday practice, evaluating the need for additional systematic biopsies at the time of targeted biopsy. Patients and methods: From our multicentric database gathering data on 2,115 patients who underwent fusion biopsy with Koelis(TM) system between 2010 and 2017, we selected 1,119 patients who received targeted biopsies (a median of 3 for each target), followed by systematic sampling of the prostate (12 to 14 cores). Overall and clinically significant cancer detection rate (CDR) of Koelis(TM) fusion biopsies were assessed, comparing target and systematic biopsies. Secondary endpoint was the identification of predictors of PCa detection. Results: The CDR of targeted biopsies only was 48% for all cancers and 33% for csPCa. The performance of additional, systematic prostate sampling improved the CDR of 15% for all cancers and of 12% for csPCa. PCa was detected in 35%, 69%, and 92% of patients with lesions scored as PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Elevated PI-RADS score and positive digital rectal examination were predictors of PCa, whereas biopsy-naïve status was associated with csPCa. Conclusion: In the everyday practice target biopsy with Koelis(TM) achieves a good CDR for all PCa and csPCa, which is significantly improved by subsequent systematic sampling of the prostate. The outstanding outcomes of fusion biopsy are confirmed also in biopsy-naïve patients. Elevated PI-RADS score and positive digital rectal examination are strongly associated with presence of PCa
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Predictive Value of Tests , Sensitivity and Specificity , Retrospective Studies , Biopsy/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in the everyday practice, evaluating the need for additional systematic biopsies at the time of targeted biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From our multicentric database gathering data on 2,115 patients who underwent fusion biopsy with Koelis™ system between 2010 and 2017, we selected 1,119 patients who received targeted biopsies (a median of 3 for each target), followed by systematic sampling of the prostate (12 to 14 cores). Overall and clinically significant cancer detection rate (CDR) of Koelis™ fusion biopsies were assessed, comparing target and systematic biopsies. Secondary endpoint was the identification of predictors of PCa detection. RESULTS: The CDR of targeted biopsies only was 48% for all cancers and 33% for csPCa. The performance of additional, systematic prostate sampling improved the CDR of 15% for all cancers and of 12% for csPCa. PCa was detected in 35%, 69%, and 92% of patients with lesions scored as PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Elevated PI-RADS score and positive digital rectal examination were predictors of PCa, whereas biopsy-naïve status was associated with csPCa. CONCLUSION: In the everyday practice target biopsy with Koelis™ achieves a good CDR for all PCa and csPCa, which is significantly improved by subsequent systematic sampling of the prostate. The outstanding outcomes of fusion biopsy are confirmed also in biopsy-naïve patients. Elevated PI-RADS score and positive digital rectal examination are strongly associated with presence of PCa.
Subject(s)
Prostate/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Humans , Image-Guided Biopsy/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy in histologic grading of MRI/US image fusion biopsy by comparing histopathology between systematic biopsies (SB), targeted biopsies (TB) and the combination of both (SB + TB) with the final histopathologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, multicentric study of 443 patients who underwent SB and TB using MRI/US fusion technique (Urostation® and Trinity®) prior to radical prostatectomy between 2010 and 2017. Cochran's Q test and McNemar test were conducted as a post hoc test. Uni-multivariable analyses were performed on several clinic-pathological variables to analyze factors predicting histopathological concordance for targeted biopsies. RESULTS: Concordance in ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade between SB, TB and SB + TB with final histopathology was 49.4%, 51.2%, and 63.2% for overall prostate cancer and 41.2%, 48.3%, and 56.7% for significant prostate cancer (ISUP grade ≥ 2), respectively. Significant difference in terms of concordance, downgrading and upgrading was found between SB and TB (ISUP grade ≥ 2 only), SB and SB + TB, TB and SB + TB (overall ISUP grade and ISUP grade ≥ 2) (p < 0.001). Total number of cores and previous biopsies were significant independent predictive factors for concordance with TB technique. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, combination of SB and TB significantly increased concordance with final histopathology despite a limited additional number of cores needed.
Subject(s)
Image-Guided Biopsy/methods , Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional , Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Ultrasonography, Interventional , Aged , Humans , Male , Multimodal Imaging , Neoplasm Grading , Prostatectomy/methods , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR gamma) immunohistochemical expression was analyzed in 75 human bladder tumor specimens, where the expression of some angiogenic factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), platelet-derived endothelial cell growth factor (PDECGF), and tumor progression markers, such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFr), p16, mutated p53, and normal pRB, were also analyzed. The results were then compared to the clinical and pathological characteristics of the disease. PPAR gamma was expressed more significantly in papillary tumors than in solid cancers, and its presence was associated with statistical significance to low incidence of tumor recurrence or progression. This significant association was observed also when PPAR gamma was expressed in the presence of PDECGF, which resulted, when considered alone, to an angiogenic factor typical of solid cancers and appeared related to poor prognosis. In the presence of bFGF, on the contrary, PPAR gamma expression no longer resulted to a significant association with low incidence of tumor recurrence or progression, suggesting a possible worsening role of this angiogenic factor, typical of papillary cancers, in its interaction with PPAR gamma.
