Journals / Üroonkoloji Bülteni / 2021 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1

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

Pages
19–25
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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).
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

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

🔖

Cite This Article

Müezzinoğlu, T., Kızılay, F., Akdoğan, B., Özen, H., Sözen, S., İzol, V., Bayazıt, Y., Çelik, S., Türkeri, L., Narter, F., Baltacı, S., Yörükoğlu, K., Aslan, G. (2022). 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, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1, 19–25. https://ajindex.com/articles/645723

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  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
  3. 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
  4. Oon S, Watson R, O’Leary J, Fitzpatrick JM. Epstein Criteria for insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011;108:518-525
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Frankcombe DE, Li J, Cohen RJ. Redefining the Concept of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer. Urology 2020;136:176-179
  9. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 2004;101:2001-2005
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Komisarenko M, Martin LJ, Finelli A. Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes. Transl Androl Urol 2018;7;243-255
  14. 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.