Background/Aims/Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of systematic transperineal sector mapping biopsy (TPSMB) in predicting Gleason score (GS) at radical prostatectomy (RP), to compare its accuracy with standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies (TRUS) and to establish the clinical impact of discordance between biopsies and RP on subsequent surgical management. Methods: Two hundred fifty-five patients from 2008 to 2013 who underwent RP following TPSMB (n = 204) or TRUS (n = 51), were included in this retrospective multi-institutional study. Concordance between biopsies and RPs GS was assessed both as percentages and with Cohen's Kappa coefficient. All mismatches between biopsies and RP were assessed for significance by 3 urologists using the Delphi method. Results: No differences were present among the groups. Concordance between biopsy and RP GS was 75.49% for TPSMB and 64.70% for TRUS. Kappa coefficient was 0.42 and 0.39 respectively. The Delphi method showed lower clinical impact of GS discordances for TPSMB with 7.8% of patients having significant change, thus being potentially more suitable for other treatment modalities, compared to TRUS (13.7%). Conclusions: TPSMB had a higher accuracy for predicting the GS grade at RP showing superior GS concordance compared with standard TRUS. TPSMB provides an effective technique for systematic prostate biopsy to evaluate overall prostate cancer GS.

Keywords:
Diagnosis, Gleason score, Prostate biopsy, Prostate cancer , Radical prostatectomy, Transperineal biopsy, Transrectal biopsy, Transperineal template biopsy
1.
Bastian PJ, Carter BH, Bjartell A, et al: Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol 2009;55:1321-1330.
2.
Kasivisvanathan V, Emberton M, Ahmed HU: Focal therapy for prostate cancer: rationale and treatment opportunities. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2013;25:461-473.
3.
Marra G, Gontero P, Valerio M: Changing the prostate cancer management pathway: why Focal Therapy is a step forward. Arch Esp Urol 2016;69:271-280.
4.
Singh PB, Anele C, Dalton E, et al: Prostate cancer tumour features on template prostate-mapping biopsies: implications for focal therapy. Eur Urol 2014;66:12-19.
5.
Ayres BE, Montgomery BS, Barber NJ, et al: The role of transperineal template prostate biopsies in restaging men with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. BJU Int 2012;109:1170-1176.
6.
Philip J, Ragavan N, Desouza J, Foster CS, Javle P: Effect of peripheral biopsies in maximising early prostate cancer detection in 8-, 10- or 12-core biopsy regimens. BJU Int 2004;93:1218-1220.
7.
Shaw GL, Thomas BC, Dawson SN, et al: Identification of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer is not accurate in unscreened men. Br J Cancer 2014;110:2405-2411.
8.
Vyas L, Acher P, Kinsella J, et al: Indications, results and safety profile of transperineal sector biopsies (TPSB) of the prostate: a single centre experience of 634 cases. BJU Int 2014;114:32-37.
9.
Huo AS, Hossack T, Symons JL, et al: Accuracy of primary systematic template guided transperineal biopsy of the prostate for locating prostate cancer: a comparison with radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2012;187:2044-2049.
10.
Shen PF, Zhu YC, Wei WR, et al: The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 2012;14:310-315.
11.
Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R, et al: Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 2009;103:1647-1654.
12.
Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, et al: Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2008;54:371-381.
13.
Kuru TH, Wadhwa K, Chang RT, et al: Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics. BJU Int 2013;112:568-577.
14.
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al: Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:876-892.
15.
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee: The 2005 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228-1242.
16.
Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, et al: Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011;186:458-464.
17.
Okoli C, Pawlowski SD: The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inform Manage 2004;42:15-29.
18.
Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, et al: Clinical-pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 2013;73:778-787.
19.
Barzell WE, Melamed MR: Appropriate patient selection in the focal treatment of prostate cancer: the role of transperineal 3-dimensional pathologic mapping of the prostate - a 4-year experience. Urology 2007;70:27-35.
20.
Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Scarpelli M, Lopez-Beltran A, Mikuz G: Prostate carcinoma I: prognostic factors in radical prostatectomy specimens and pelvic lymph nodes. BJU Int 2006;97:485-491.
21.
Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Scarpelli M, et al: Prostate carcinoma II: prognostic factors in prostate needle biopsies. BJU Int 2006;97:492-497.
22.
Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield L, Rabets JC, Zippe CD, Magi-Galluzzi C: Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol 2006;175:485-488.
23.
Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, et al: 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.
24.
Coogan CL, Latchamsetty KC, Greenfield J, Corman JM, Lynch B, Porter CR: Increasing the number of biopsy cores improves the concordance of biopsy Gleason score to prostatectomy Gleason score. BJU Int 2005;96:324-327.
25.
Quintana L, Ward A, Gerrin SJ, et al: Gleason misclassification rate is independent of number of biopsy cores in systematic biopsy. Urology 2016;91:143-149.
26.
Seles M, Gutschi T, Mayrhofer K, et al: Sampling of the anterior apical region results in increased cancer detection and upgrading in transrectal repeat saturation biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int 2016;117:592-597.
27.
Muntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, et al: Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008;53:767-775; discussion 775-776.
28.
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;389:815-822.
29.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014;65:124-137.
30.
Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A: Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:126-131.
31.
Beauval JB, Ploussard G, Soulie M, et al: Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. Urology 2012;80:656-660.
32.
VAN DEN Bergh RC, Zargar H, Heijmink S, Bozin M, Murphy DG, VAN DER Poel HG: Reducing the rate of biopsy Gleason undergrading may not improve biochemical recurrence rates in active surveillance candidates. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2017, Epub ahead of print.
© 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.