Variance between multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies tied to faulty risk stratification in prostate cancer: Study

Written By :  Dr Satabdi Saha
Medically Reviewed By :  Dr. Kamal Kant Kohli
Published On 2021-08-14 03:30 GMT   |   Update On 2021-08-14 08:01 GMT
Advertisement

Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a cornerstone of international guidelines on prostate cancer detection and risk stratification. Upfront MRI focuses attention on a region of interest (ROI) that image-guided biopsies (IGBs) characterize with precision. Any discordance between MRI and fusion biopsies may result in inadequate risk stratification that may be redressed by software-registration IGBs.

Recent study reports published in European Urology Oncology have highlighted that discordant findings between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transrectal image-guided biopsies of the prostate (TRUS-P) may result in inadequate risk stratification of localized prostate cancer.

In the study,researchers aimed to assess transperineal image-guided biopsies of the index target (TPER-IT) in terms of disease reclassification and treatment recommendations.For the study design, cases referred for suspicion or treatment of localized prostate cancer were reviewed in a multidisciplinary setting, and discordance was characterized into three scenarios: type I—negative biopsies or International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥4 index target (IT); type II—negative biopsies or ISUP grade 1 cancer in anterior IT; and type III—<3 mm stretch of cancer in PI-RADS ≥3 IT. Discordant findings were characterized in 132/558 (23.7%) patients after TRUS-P. Of these patients, 102 received reassessment TPER-IT.

The primary objective was to report changes in treatment recommendations after TPER-IT. Therefore, cores obtained by primary TRUS-P and TPER-IT were analyzed in terms of cancer detection, ISUP grade, and Cambridge Prognostic Group classification using descriptive statistics.

Results put forth some interesting facts.

  • TPER-IT biopsies that consisted of fewer cores than the initial TRUS-P (seven vs 14, p < 0.0001) resulted in more cancer tissue materials for analysis (56 vs 42.5 mm, p = 0.0003).
  • As a result, 40% of patients initially considered for follow-up (12/30) and 49% for active surveillance (30/61) were reassigned after TPER-IT to surgery or intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

"Nonconcordance between pathology and imaging was observed in a significant proportion of patients receiving TRUS-P. TPER-IT better informed the presence and grade of cancer, resulting in a significant impact on treatment recommendations. A multidisciplinary review of mpMRI and TRUS-P findings and reassessment TPER-IT in type I–II discordances is recommended." the team opined.

Observing the results, the research team concluded that , "In this report, patients with suspicious imaging of the prostate, but no or well-differentiated cancer on transrectal image-guided -biopsies, were offered transperineal image-guided biopsies for reassessment. We found that a large share of these had a more aggressive cancer than initially suspected. We conclude that discordant results warrant reassessment transperineal image-guided biopsies as these may impact disease risk classification and treatment recommendations."

For full article follow the link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2021.06.001

Source: European Urology Oncology



Tags:    
Article Source : European Urology Oncology

Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.

NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News