Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey

Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 19 - 25 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677 İndeks Tarihi: 17-05-2022

Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey

Öz:
Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the relevance of the Epstein criteria for the 12-core transrectal prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) scheme with the evaluation of clinicopathologic data recorded in the Urologic Cancer Database - Prostate (UroCaD-P), Urooncology Association, Turkey (UOAT). Materials and Methods: Patients with detailed pathological 12-core TRUS-Bx data for each biopsy core and who underwent RP due to PCa were included in this study. A total of 1167 patients from seven different centres were analysed. TRUS-Bx pathological findings were separately evaluated in the areas matching the sextant biopsy (6-core paramedian-lateral) scheme and in all 12-core biopsy areas (12-core biopsy scheme). Overall detection rates of PCa and ratios of clinically significant (sPCa) and insignificant PCa (insPCa) after RP were defined and compared between the biopsy schemes. Biopsy findings, according to the Epstein criteria, were also compared between the two schemes. A model for each biopsy scheme was created, including the Epstein criteria and additional biopsy findings using logistic regression analysis to predict clinically sPCa after RP. Results: There was a high correlation for the prediction of clinically insPCa between the two biopsy schemes in the same population. However, 7.3% of PCa could not be diagnosed in the 6-core TRUS-Bx scheme. Also, 69.4% of these had clinically sPCa according to the Epstein criteria in 12-core TRUS-Bx scheme and 51.8% of these were clinically sPCa after RP. The presence of perineural invasion (PNI) in 12-core biopsy was also significant regarding predicting sPCa (p<0.001). Conclusion: The Epstein criteria in 12-core prostate biopsy provide a better prediction of clinically sPCa than the 6-core biopsy scheme. Biopsy PNI findings appeared to improve the effectiveness of 12-core prostate biopsy, in addition to the Epstein criteria. Keywords: Prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, clinically insignificant prostate cancer, Epstein criteria, 12-core prostate biopsy scheme
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
0
0
0
  • 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:7-34.
  • 2. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU Guideline on Prostate Cancer. 2019. Uroweb. Available: https://uroweb.org/ guideline/prostate-cancer/
  • 3. Stamey T, Freiha F, McNeal J, et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumour volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993;71(3 Suppl):933-938.
  • 4. Epstein J, Walsh P, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumour extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368-374.
  • 5. Oon S, Watson R, O’Leary J, Fitzpatrick JM. Epstein Criteria for insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011;108:518-525.
  • 6. Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:868-878.
  • 7. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, et al. Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). J Urol 2003;170(6 Pt 2):S21-S25; discussion S26-S27.
  • 8. Carter HB, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Prospective evaluation of men with stage T1C adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997;157:2206-2209.
  • 9. Frankcombe DE, Li J, Cohen RJ. Redefining the Concept of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer. Urology 2020;136:176-179.
  • 10. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 2004;101:2001-2005.
  • 11. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Yu X, et al. Prostate specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness. J Urol 2007;177:505-509.
  • 12. Van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009;55:1-8.
  • 13. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 2007;178:2359-2364; discussion 2364-2365.
  • 14. Komisarenko M, Martin LJ, Finelli A. Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes. Transl Androl Urol 2018;7;243-255.
  • 15. Dall’Era MA, Cooperberg MR, Chan JM, et al. Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer 2008;112:1650-1659.
  • 16. van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al. Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008;54:1297-1305.
  • 17. Matoso A, Epstein JI. Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology 2019;74:135-145.
  • 18. Audenet F, Vertosick EA, Fine SW, et al. Biopsy core features are poor predictors of adverse pathology in men with grade group 1 prostate cancer. J Urol 2018;199;961–968.
  • 19. Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, et al. A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol 2016;70:954-960.
  • 20. Tosoian JJ, Mamawala M, Patel HD, et al. Tumor volume on biopsy of low risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. J Urol 2018;199:954-960.
  • 21. Hassan MO, Maksem J. The prostatic perineural space and its relation to tumor spread: an ultrastructural study. Am J Surg Pathol 1980;4:143-148.
  • 22. DeLancey JO, Wood Jr DP, He C, et al. Evidence of perineural invasion on prostate biopsy specimen and survival after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2013;81:354-357.
  • 23. Gutie´rrez C, Terrasa F, Briones G, et al. Prognostic role of perineural invasion in prostate biopsy. Actas Urol Esp 2011;35:347-353.
  • 24. Miller JS, Chen Y, Ye H, et al. Extraprostatic extension of prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle core biopsy: report of 72 cases with clinical follow-up. BJU Int 2010;106:330-333.
  • 25. Celik S, Bozkurt O, Demir O, et al. Effects of perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy on tumor grade and biochemical recurrence rates after radical prostatectomy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2018;34:385-390.
  • 26. Bismar TA, Lewis JS Jr, Vollmer RT, Humphrey PA. Multiple measures of carcinoma extent versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a screening population. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27:432-440.
  • 27. Harnden P, Shelley MD, Clements H, et al. The prognostic significance of perineural invasion in prostatic cancer biopsies: a systematic review. Cancer 2007;109:13-24.
  • 28. Al-Hussain T, Carter HB, Epstein JI. Significance of prostate adenocarcinoma perineural invasion on biopsy in patients who are otherwise candidates for active surveillance. J Urol 2011;186;470-473.
  • 29. Trpkov C, Yilmaz A, Trpkov K. Perineural invasion in prostate cancer patients who are potential candidates for active surveillance: validation study. Urology 2014;84;149-152.
APA Celik S, Kızılay F, YORUKOGLU K, Eliş H, Akdoğan B, Izol V, BAYAZIT Y, aslan g, Sozen T, Baltacı S, MÜEZZINOGLU T, Narter F, Türkeri L (2021). Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey. , 19 - 25. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
Chicago Celik Serdar,Kızılay Fuat,YORUKOGLU KUTSAL,Eliş Haluk,Akdoğan Bülent,Izol Volkan,BAYAZIT YILDIRIM,aslan guven,Sozen Tevfik Sinan,Baltacı Sümer,MÜEZZINOGLU TALHA,Narter Fehmi,Türkeri Levent Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey. (2021): 19 - 25. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
MLA Celik Serdar,Kızılay Fuat,YORUKOGLU KUTSAL,Eliş Haluk,Akdoğan Bülent,Izol Volkan,BAYAZIT YILDIRIM,aslan guven,Sozen Tevfik Sinan,Baltacı Sümer,MÜEZZINOGLU TALHA,Narter Fehmi,Türkeri Levent Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey. , 2021, ss.19 - 25. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
AMA Celik S,Kızılay F,YORUKOGLU K,Eliş H,Akdoğan B,Izol V,BAYAZIT Y,aslan g,Sozen T,Baltacı S,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Narter F,Türkeri L Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey. . 2021; 19 - 25. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
Vancouver Celik S,Kızılay F,YORUKOGLU K,Eliş H,Akdoğan B,Izol V,BAYAZIT Y,aslan g,Sozen T,Baltacı S,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Narter F,Türkeri L Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey. . 2021; 19 - 25. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
IEEE Celik S,Kızılay F,YORUKOGLU K,Eliş H,Akdoğan B,Izol V,BAYAZIT Y,aslan g,Sozen T,Baltacı S,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Narter F,Türkeri L "Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey." , ss.19 - 25, 2021. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
ISNAD Celik, Serdar vd. "Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey". (2021), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
APA Celik S, Kızılay F, YORUKOGLU K, Eliş H, Akdoğan B, Izol V, BAYAZIT Y, aslan g, Sozen T, Baltacı S, MÜEZZINOGLU T, Narter F, Türkeri L (2021). Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey. Üroonkoloji Bülteni, 20(1), 19 - 25. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
Chicago Celik Serdar,Kızılay Fuat,YORUKOGLU KUTSAL,Eliş Haluk,Akdoğan Bülent,Izol Volkan,BAYAZIT YILDIRIM,aslan guven,Sozen Tevfik Sinan,Baltacı Sümer,MÜEZZINOGLU TALHA,Narter Fehmi,Türkeri Levent Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey. Üroonkoloji Bülteni 20, no.1 (2021): 19 - 25. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
MLA Celik Serdar,Kızılay Fuat,YORUKOGLU KUTSAL,Eliş Haluk,Akdoğan Bülent,Izol Volkan,BAYAZIT YILDIRIM,aslan guven,Sozen Tevfik Sinan,Baltacı Sümer,MÜEZZINOGLU TALHA,Narter Fehmi,Türkeri Levent Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey. Üroonkoloji Bülteni, vol.20, no.1, 2021, ss.19 - 25. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
AMA Celik S,Kızılay F,YORUKOGLU K,Eliş H,Akdoğan B,Izol V,BAYAZIT Y,aslan g,Sozen T,Baltacı S,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Narter F,Türkeri L Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey. Üroonkoloji Bülteni. 2021; 20(1): 19 - 25. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
Vancouver Celik S,Kızılay F,YORUKOGLU K,Eliş H,Akdoğan B,Izol V,BAYAZIT Y,aslan g,Sozen T,Baltacı S,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Narter F,Türkeri L Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey. Üroonkoloji Bülteni. 2021; 20(1): 19 - 25. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
IEEE Celik S,Kızılay F,YORUKOGLU K,Eliş H,Akdoğan B,Izol V,BAYAZIT Y,aslan g,Sozen T,Baltacı S,MÜEZZINOGLU T,Narter F,Türkeri L "Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey." Üroonkoloji Bülteni, 20, ss.19 - 25, 2021. 10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677
ISNAD Celik, Serdar vd. "Are the Recommended Criteria for Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer Applicable to 12-core Prostate Biopsy Scheme? A Multicentre Study of Urooncology Association, Turkey". Üroonkoloji Bülteni 20/1 (2021), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.4274/uob.galenos.2020.1677