Background: We aim to correlate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate reporting (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] version 2) with the Gleason score into both radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen and MRI fusion-targeted biopsies (FTB). Methods: mpMRI of 74 patients who underwent an RP after FTB were retrospectively reviewed. The Gleason score distribution was compared according to the PI-RADS score using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results were compared to those of the mpMRI-guided biopsy of the same anatomical zone. For comparison, 903 RP specimen and their corresponding classical biopsies were also reviewed. Cohen's kappa concordance test was used to compare biopsies and prostatectomy specimen analyses. Results: An exact match between Gleason grade in RP specimen and FTB was found in 62% of the cases. There was no significant difference in Gleason score ≤7 (3 + 4) vs. ≥7 (4 + 3) distribution according to the PI-RADS scores (p = 0.096). Overall, Kappa coefficients were similar with MRI-targeted biopsies compared to classical biopsies (κ = 0.378, 95% CI [0.194-0.563], and κ = 0.316, 95% CI [0.259-0.374], respectively). Conclusions: PI-RADS score was not associated with significant differences regarding Gleason score distribution within target. Moreover, concordance of Gleason score in both MRI-targeted and classical biopsies with those within target in RP specimen was weak.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Radical prostatectomy, Targeted biopsy, Magnetic resonance imaging, Gleason
1.
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69-90.
2.
Moosavi B, Flood TA, Al-Dandan O, Breau RH, Cagiannos I, Morash C, Malone SC, Schieda N: Multiparametric MRI of the anterior prostate gland: clinical-radiological-histopathological correlation. Clin Radiol 2016;71:405-417.
3.
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M: Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation of men in active surveillance? World J Urol 2016;34:1249-1253.
4.
Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL: PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol 2015;70:1165-1176.
5.
Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Holzmann J, Asbach P, Haas M, Hinz S, Neymeyer J, Miller K, Günzel K, Kempkensteffen C: The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol 2016;34:525-532.
6.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S: PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40.
7.
Van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, Montironi R, Wheeler TM, Srigley JR, Egevad L, Delahunt B; ISUP Prostate Cancer Group International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol 2011;24:16-25.
8.
Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Hoskin PJ, Kirkham A, Padhani AR, Persad R, Puech P, Punwani S, Sohaib AS, Tombal B, Villers A, van der Meulen J, Emberton M: Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011;59:477-494.
9.
Nam RK, Wallis CJ, Stojcic-Bendavid J, Milot L, Sherman C, Sugar L, Haider MA: A pilot study to evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer screening in the general population. J Urol 2016;196:361-366.
10.
Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M, Palmer S, Matsugasumi T, Marien A, Bernhard JC, Rewcastle JC, Eggesbø HB, Gill IS: Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 2015;67:787-794.
11.
Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, Renner T, Herout R, Baunacke M, Laniado M, Baretton G, Froehner M, Zastrow S, Wirth M: 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;118:213-220.
12.
Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Kesch C, Popeneciu IV, Huettenbrink C, Gasch C, Klein T, Bonekamp D, Duensing S, Roth W, Schueler S, Stock C, Schlemmer HP, Roethke M, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 2016;70:846-853.
13.
Lanz C, Cornud F, Beuvon F, Lefèvre A, Legmann P, Zerbib M, Delongchamps NB: Gleason score determination with transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided prostate biopsies - are we gaining in accuracy? J Urol 2016;195:88-93.
14.
Baco E, Rud E, Ukimura O, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Matsugasumi T, Bernhard JC, Rewcastle JC, Eggesbo HB: Effect of targeted biopsy guided by elastic image fusion of MRI with 3D-TRUS on diagnosis of anterior prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2014;32:1300-1307.
15.
Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA, Moskowitz CS, Gondo T, Matsumoto K, Ehdaie B, Woo S, Fine SW, Reuter VE, Sala E, Hricak H: Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 2015;26:1606-1612.
16.
Junker D, Quentin M, Nagele U, Edlinger M, Richenberg J, Schaefer G, Ladurner M, Jaschke W, Horninger W, Aigner F: Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for mpMRI of the prostate: a whole-mount step-section analysis. World J Urol 2015;33:1023-1030.
17.
Siddiqui M, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL, Linehan WM, Merino MJ, Simon RM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA: Comparison of mr/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015;313:390-397.
18.
Delongchamps NB, Lefèvre A, Bouazza N, Beuvon F, Legman P, Cornud F: Detection of significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance targeted biopsies - should transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided biopsies alone be a standard of care? J Urol 2015;193:1198-1204.
19.
Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Lieu P, Dorey FJ, Reiter RE, Marks LS: Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 2016;122:884-892.
20.
Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Eggesbo HB, Ukimura O: A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol 2016;69:149-156.
21.
Le JD, Stephenson S, Brugger M, Lu DY, Lieu P, Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Dorey FJ, Huang J, Margolis DJ, Reiter RE, Marks LS: Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol 2014;192:1367-1373.
22.
Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Miller K, Asbach P, Haas M, Kempkensteffen C: Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int 2016;118:35-43.
23.
Radtke JP, Teber D, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA: The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management. Transl Androl Urol 2015;4:326-341.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.