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.
Human Pathology – Elsevier
Published: Jun 1, 2018
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
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
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.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera