Postoperative change in Gleason score of prostate cancer in fusion targeted biopsy: a matched pair analysis

References

• Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seisen T, Roudot-Thoraval F, Bosset PO, et al. Predicting the risk of harboring high-grade disease for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer scored as Gleason </= 6 on biopsy cores. World J Urol. 2015;33(6):787–792.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1019–1024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lellig E, Gratzke C, Kretschmer A, et al. Final pathohistology after radical prostatectomy in patients eligible for active surveillance (AS). World J Urol. 2015;33(7):917–922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porcaro AB, Siracusano S, de Luyk N, et al. Low-risk prostate cancer and tumor upgrading in the surgical specimen: analysis of clinical factors predicting tumor upgrading in a contemporary series of patients who were evaluated according to the modified gleason score grading system. Curr Urol. 2016;10(3):118–125.
   Google Scholar
• Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, et al. Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol. 2011;29(5):508–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herlemann A, Buchner A, Kretschmer A, et al. Postoperative upgrading of prostate cancer in men >/=75 years: a propensity score-matched analysis. World J Urol. 2017;35(10):1517–1524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santok GD, Abdel Raheem A, Kim LH, et al. Prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL: a predictor of degree of upgrading to ≥8 among patients with biopsy Gleason score 6. Investig Clin Urol. 2017;58(2):90–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calio BP, Sidana A, Sugano D, et al. Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology-does saturation biopsy of index lesion during multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy help? J Urol. 2018;199(4):976–982.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai WS, Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV, et al. Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population. Cancer. 2017;123(11):1941–1948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, et al. Direct comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results with final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasonography-fusion biopsy. BJU Int. 2016;118(2):213–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):713–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasivisvanathan V, Stabile A, Neves JB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):284–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767–1777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging – reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271(5):368–374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Jr., Amin MB, et al. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228–1242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sved PD, Gomez P, Manoharan M, et al. Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. The J Urol. 2004;172(1):98–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter CR, Kodama K, Gibbons RP, et al. 25-Year prostate cancer control and survival outcomes: a 40-year radical prostatectomy single institution series. J Urol. 2006; 176(2):569–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans SM, Patabendi Bandarage V, Kronborg C, et al. Gleason group concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens: a cohort study from Prostate Cancer Outcome Registry – Victoria. Prostate Int. 2016;4(4):145–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arsov C, Becker N, Rabenalt R, et al. The use of targeted MR-guided prostate biopsy reduces the risk of Gleason upgrading on radical prostatectomy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015;141(11):2061–2068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le JD, Stephenson S, Brugger M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol. 2014;192(5):1367–1373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Q, Wang W, Zhang B, et al. Comparison of free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy with transperineal 12-core systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a single-center prospective study in China. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49(3):439–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg KD, Toft BG, Roder MA, et al. Prostate needle biopsies: interobserver variation and clinical consequences of histopathological re-evaluation. APMIS. 2011;119(4–5):239–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meliti A, Sadimin E, Diolombi M, et al. Accuracy of Grading Gleason Score 7 prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy: influence of percent pattern 4 and other histological factors. Prostate. 2017;77(6):681–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar