Defining the optimal method for reporting prostate cancer grade and tumor extent on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion–targeted biopsies

Defining the optimal method for reporting prostate cancer grade and tumor extent on magnetic... Magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasound fusion–targeted biopsy (TB) routinely samples multiple cores from each MR lesion of interest. Pathologists can evaluate the extent of cancer involvement and grade using an individual core (IC) or aggregate (AG) method, which could potentially lead to differences in reporting. We reviewed patients who underwent TB followed by radical prostatectomy (RP). TB cores were evaluated for grade and tumor extent by 2 methods. In the IC method, the grade for each TB lesion was based on the core with the highest Gleason score. Tumor extent for each TB was based on the core with the highest percent of tumor involvement. In the AG method, the tumor from all cores within each TB lesion was aggregated to determine the final composite grade and percentage of tumor involvement. Each method was compared with MR lesional volume, MR lesional density (lesion volume/prostate volume), and RP. Fifty-five patients underwent TB followed by RP. Extent of tumor by the AG method showed a better correlation with target lesion volume (r = 0.27, P = .022) and lesional density (r = 0.32, P = .008) than did the IC method (r = 0.19 [P = .103] and r = 0.22 [P = .062]), respectively. Extent of tumor on TB was associated with extraprostatic extension on RP by the AG method (P = .04), but not by the IC method. This association was significantly higher in patients with a grade group (GG) of 3 or higher (P = .03). A change in cancer grade occurred in 3 patients when comparing methods (2 downgraded GG3 to GG2, 1 downgraded GG4 to GG3 by the AG method). For multiple cores obtained via TB, the AG method better correlates with target lesion volume, lesional density, and extraprostatic extension. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Human Pathology Elsevier

Defining the optimal method for reporting prostate cancer grade and tumor extent on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion–targeted biopsies

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/defining-the-optimal-method-for-reporting-prostate-cancer-grade-and-brsqumL9v0
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc.
ISSN
0046-8177
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.humpath.2018.03.005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasound fusion–targeted biopsy (TB) routinely samples multiple cores from each MR lesion of interest. Pathologists can evaluate the extent of cancer involvement and grade using an individual core (IC) or aggregate (AG) method, which could potentially lead to differences in reporting. We reviewed patients who underwent TB followed by radical prostatectomy (RP). TB cores were evaluated for grade and tumor extent by 2 methods. In the IC method, the grade for each TB lesion was based on the core with the highest Gleason score. Tumor extent for each TB was based on the core with the highest percent of tumor involvement. In the AG method, the tumor from all cores within each TB lesion was aggregated to determine the final composite grade and percentage of tumor involvement. Each method was compared with MR lesional volume, MR lesional density (lesion volume/prostate volume), and RP. Fifty-five patients underwent TB followed by RP. Extent of tumor by the AG method showed a better correlation with target lesion volume (r = 0.27, P = .022) and lesional density (r = 0.32, P = .008) than did the IC method (r = 0.19 [P = .103] and r = 0.22 [P = .062]), respectively. Extent of tumor on TB was associated with extraprostatic extension on RP by the AG method (P = .04), but not by the IC method. This association was significantly higher in patients with a grade group (GG) of 3 or higher (P = .03). A change in cancer grade occurred in 3 patients when comparing methods (2 downgraded GG3 to GG2, 1 downgraded GG4 to GG3 by the AG method). For multiple cores obtained via TB, the AG method better correlates with target lesion volume, lesional density, and extraprostatic extension.

Journal

Human PathologyElsevier

Published: Jun 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off