Transperineal sector biopsies: Their role in prostate cancer active surveillance.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 228-228
Author(s):  
Lona Vyas
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Delayed Treatment ◽  
Prostate Biopsies ◽  
Transrectal Biopsy ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer

228 Background: Many men with low risk prostate cancer on transrectal biopsy appear suitable for active surveillance (AS). Under staging and grading at diagnosis can result in delayed treatment and risk of poorer oncological outcomes. In most AS series about 30% men have active treatment at a median of two years for presumed disease progression/choice but this may represent disease mischaracterised at initial biopsy. So it is essential to accurately stratify patients before surveillance. We have routinely offered transperineal sector prostate biopsies (TPSB), using 24-32 cores, to all patients considering AS. Methods: 350 patients with apparent low to intermediate risk prostate cancer after transrectal prostate biopsy (TRUS Bx) underwent transperineal sector biopsies. Results: Median age 64 yrs (38–84). Median PSA 7.2 ug/l (0.14–58). 190 had Gleason 3+3, 115 had Gleason 3+4 and 45 >3+4 disease. 145 (41%) patients elected for definitive treatment, in 112 because there was an upgrade or higher disease volume compared with the original TRUS Bx. 33 patients chose definitive treatment rather than continued AS. 205 (59%) patients entered our AS programme, in 25 follow up data is incomplete leaving 180 for analysis. 61 have had repeat TPSB within our protocol and at a median follow up at 2 years in 56/61 (92%) the Gleason score and volume of disease was unchanged. Only 5/180, 2.8% have had treatment for disease progression and additionally 4/180 (2.2%) have chosen active intervention over continued surveillance, despite no evidence of progression. Conclusions: TRUS biopsies under-estimate Gleason grade or cancer volume compared with TPSB. In our cohort of AS patients only 2.8%, at a median follow up of two years, have transferred to definitive treatment for disease progression. TPSB provides the best method to exclude higher risk disease from AS programmes.

scholarly journals MP48-17 DO PROGRESSION RATES ON FOLLOW UP BIOPSY OVER TIME DIFFER BETWEEN MEN WITH VERY LOW RISK AND LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER ON ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE?

2019 ◽  
Vol 201 (Supplement 4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Srinath Kotamarti* ◽  
Andrew Wood ◽  
Alyssa Yee ◽  
Daniel Rabinowitz ◽  
Allison Marziliano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Over Time

scholarly journals Natural history of prostate cancer on active surveillance: stratification by MRI using the PRECISE recommendations in a UK cohort

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Giganti ◽  
Armando Stabile ◽  
Vasilis Stavrinides ◽  
Elizabeth Osinibi ◽  
Adam Retter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Gleason Grade ◽  
Clinical Progression ◽  
Radiological Progression ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Psa Density

Abstract Objectives The PRECISE recommendations for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) include repeated measurement of each lesion, and attribution of a PRECISE radiological progression score for the likelihood of clinically significant change over time. We aimed to compare the PRECISE score with clinical progression in patients who are managed using an MRI-led AS protocol. Methods A total of 553 patients on AS for low- and intermediate-risk PCa (up to Gleason score 3 + 4) who had two or more MRI scans performed between December 2005 and January 2020 were included. Overall, 2161 scans were retrospectively re-reported by a dedicated radiologist to give a PI-RADS v2 score for each scan and assess the PRECISE score for each follow-up scan. Clinical progression was defined by histological progression to ≥ Gleason score 4 + 3 (Gleason Grade Group 3) and/or initiation of active treatment. Progression-free survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test was used to assess differences between curves. Results Overall, 165/553 (30%) patients experienced the primary outcome of clinical progression (median follow-up, 74.5 months; interquartile ranges, 53–98). Of all patients, 313/553 (57%) did not show radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3), of which 296/313 (95%) had also no clinical progression. Of the remaining 240/553 patients (43%) with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5), 146/240 (61%) experienced clinical progression (p < 0.0001). Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4-5) showed a trend to an increase in PSA density. Conclusions Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1-3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. Key Points • Patients without radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 1–3) during AS had a very low likelihood of clinical progression and many could avoid routine re-biopsy. • Clinical progression was almost always detectable in patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS. • Patients with radiological progression on MRI (PRECISE 4–5) during AS showed a trend to an increase in PSA density.

Performance of MRI-TRUS-guided fusion biopsy to detect progression on active surveillance for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 43-43
Author(s):  
Thomas P. Frye ◽  
Nabeel Ahmad Shakir ◽  
Steven Abboud ◽  
Arvin Koruthu George ◽  
Maria J Merino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Trus Biopsy ◽  
Guided Biopsy ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer

43 Background: Active surveillance (AS) is an established treatment option for men with low risk prostate cancer. Its role in intermediate prostate cancer is still being investigated. Recent studies have shown that multiparametric-MRI (mp-MRI) along with MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy may better assess risk in patients eligible for AS, compared to 12-core biopsy, due to improved detection of clinically significant cancers. The objective is to determine the performance of MRI-TRUS guided biopsy for men on AS with both low and intermediate risk disease. Methods: Between 2007-2014 men on AS were included if they had complete mp-MRI and pathology data for 2 or more MRI-TRUS biopsy sessions. Fusion guided biopsy procedures consisted of MRI identified targeted biopsies as well as random 12 core biopsies. Men were allowed to participate in AS with low and intermediate risk prostate cancer, Gleason score ≤ 3+4=7. Progression was defined by patients with initial Gleason 3+3=6 to any Gleason 4, and Gleason 3+4=7 disease progressing to a primary Gleason 4 or higher. Results: 89 men met our study criteria with an average age of 62 years old (range 45-79). 75 men had low risk Gleason 3+3=6 at the outset of AS by 1st biopsy session with a median PSA 5.1 ng/ml. The other 14 men had intermediate risk prostate cancer Gleason 3+4=7 at the outset of AS and a median PSA 4.6 ng/ml. During follow-up, 25 (33%) low risk men progressed to 3+4 or above at a median of 20.6 months. Of these, 19 were found by targeted biopsy. 6 (43%) of the intermediate risk men progressed to Gleason 4+3=7 at a median of 36.8 months. 4 of these progressed on targeted fusion biopsy. In the intermediate risk men, 84 random biopsy cores were require to detect 1 progression versus 15 targeted biopsy cores to detect 1 progression. Conclusions: The majority of patients on AS who progressed were identified by MRI-TRUS targeted biopsy. Less biopsy cores are required to detect progression with targeted biopsy. These results are preliminary and a larger cohort with longer follow-up would be beneficial.

Change in a 17-gene genomic prostate score over time in men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 124-124
Author(s):  
Michael S. Leapman ◽  
Janet E. Cowan ◽  
Hao Gia Nguyen ◽  
Matthew R. Cooperberg ◽  
Peter Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Pathological Findings ◽  
Clinical Risk ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Over Time

124 Background: A biopsy-based RT-PCR assay (Oncotype DX Prostate Assay) providing a Genomic Prostate Score (GPS) as a measure of tumor aggressiveness has been validated as a predictor of adverse pathologic and oncologic outcomes. We sought to evaluate the change in GPS results among men with favorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa) managed with active surveillance (AS). Methods: We identified men with low and intermediate-clinical risk PCa managed with AS at our institution receiving a minimum of two GPS tests on serial prostate biopsy. GPS ranges from 0 (least) to 100 (most aggressive disease). We described the change in assay results and clinical risk designation over time and reported the subsequent clinical outcome (definitive treatment versus continued AS). For men receiving treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP) the occurrence of adverse pathological findings was defined by the presence of high grade (Gleason pattern ≥ 4+3) or non-organ confined disease ( ≥ pT3a). Results: 31 men were identified who underwent serial GPS testing at a median of 12 months. The median change in GPS was an increase of 1 point (IQR -7, 13). Fourteen (45%) patients experienced an increase in NCCN risk classification, including 3 from very-low to intermediate and 11 from low to intermediate risk. Following serial GPS testing 7 patients (23%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Among surgically treated patients, 3 had adverse pathology due to pT3a disease and the mean change in GPS prior to treatment was an increase of 13 points (IQR -7, 18); all of whom were intermediate clinical risk at the time of surgery. This study was limited by the small sample size and the uncontrolled decision to pursue definitive therapy. Conclusions: Serial change in a tissue based gene expression assay on serial biopsy during AS was non-static. Magnitude of GPS change may identify men at risk for adverse pathological findings, although larger series are required to validate such an endpoint during AS.

scholarly journals Changes in Prostate Cancer Grade on Serial Biopsy in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (20) ◽  
pp. 2795-2800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sima P. Porten ◽  
Jared M. Whitson ◽  
Janet E. Cowan ◽  
Matthew R. Cooperberg ◽  
Katsuto Shinohara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Sampling Error ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Gleason Grade

Purpose Active surveillance is now considered a viable treatment option for men with low-risk prostate cancer. However, little is known regarding changes in Gleason grade on serial biopsies over an extended period of time. Patients and Methods Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1998 and 2009 who elected active surveillance as initial treatment, with 6 or more months of follow-up and a minimum of six cores at biopsy, were included in analysis. Upgrading and downgrading were defined as an increase or decrease in primary or secondary Gleason score. Means and frequency tables were used to describe patient characteristics, and treatment-free survival rates were determined by life-table product limit estimates. Results Three hundred seventy-seven men met inclusion criteria. Mean age at diagnosis was 61.9 years. Fifty-three percent of men had prostate-specific antigen of 6 ng/mL or less, and 94% had Gleason score of 6 or less. A majority of men were cT1 (62%), had less than 33% of biopsy cores involved (80%), and were low risk (77%) at diagnosis. Median number of cores taken at diagnostic biopsy was 13, mean time to follow-up was 18.5 months, and 29% of men had three or more repeat biopsies. Overall, 34% (129 men) were found to have an increase in Gleason grade. The majority of men who experienced an upgrade (81%) did so by their second repeat biopsy. Conclusion A proportion of men experience an upgrade in Gleason score while undergoing active surveillance. Men who experience early upgrading likely represent initial sampling error, whereas later upgrading may reflect tumor dedifferentiation.

Value of multimodality MRI and MR-guided biopsy at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for prostate cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 105-105
Author(s):  
Diederik Meindert Somford ◽  
Caroline M. Hoeks ◽  
Roderick C. van den Bergh ◽  
Henk Vergunst ◽  
Inge M van Oort ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Prostate Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Guided Biopsy ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Surveillance Protocol

105 Background: To prevent overtreatment of insignificant and/or low-risk prostate carcinoma in the PSA screening era, active surveillance is emerging as a treatment strategy for selected patients. In our series we aim to establish whether MRI could aid in correct risk assessment for these patients within the framework of the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) study. Methods: We included patients in our protocol based on contemporary criteria for active surveillance: - Diagnosis of prostate cancer by TRUS-guided biopsy. - PSA ≤10 ng/mL, PSA density <0.2 ng/mL/mL - Clinical stage ≤ T2 - Gleason score (GS) ≤3+3=6 - ≤ 2 biopsy cores with cancer All patients underwent multimodality MRI of the prostate, including T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR sequences. When a tumor-suspicious region (TSR) could be identified a targeted MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) was performed to obtain pathology. Patients were referred for definitive treatment in case of GS > 3+3=6 upon MRGB or T3 stage at MRI. Results: In 48 of 49 included patients at least one TSR was identified, with a median of 2 TSRs (range1-4) per patient. MRGB was obtained from every TSR, with a median of 4 MRGBs taken per patient. Five patients had a GS >3+3=6 upon MRGB and were excluded. Three patients were excluded due to suspicion of T3 stage on MRI. Five patient were excluded upon physician’s discretion due to multifocal prostate cancer upon MRGB. Combined multimodality MRI/MRGB in our active surveillance cohort thus excluded 27% (13/49) of patients who were incorrectly stratified as low-risk prostate carcinoma by contemporary criteria. Conclusions: Application of multimodality MRI and MRGB in an active surveillance protocol improves risk stratification, adding onto contemporary PSA and TRUS-guided biopsy criteria for low-risk prostate cancer. This approach might increase safety and reliability of active surveillance for prostate cancer and deserves ongoing prospective evaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document