Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Decreased accuracy of the prostate cancer EAU risk group classification in the era of imaging-guided diagnostic pathway: proposal for a new classification based on MRI-targeted biopsies and early oncologic outcomes after surgery

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the performance of EAU risk classification in PCa patients according to the biopsy pathway (standard versus MRI guided) and to develop a new, more accurate, targeted biopsy (TB)-based classification.

Materials and methods

We included 1345 patients consecutively operated by radical prostatectomy (RP) since 2014, when MRI and TB were introduced in the diagnostic pathway. Patients underwent systematic biopsy (SB) only (n = 819) or SB and TB (n = 526) prior to RP during the same time period. Pathological and biochemical outcomes were compared between PCa men undergoing SB (SB cohort) and a combination of TB and SB (TB cohort). Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression models were used to assess biochemical recurrence-free survival (RFS).

Results

Both cohorts were comparable regarding final pathology and RFS (p = 0.538). The EAU risk classification accurately predicted outcomes in SB cohort, but did not significantly separate low from intermediate risk in TB cohort (p = 0.791). In TB cohort, the new proposed three-group risk classification significantly improved the recurrence risk prediction compared with the EAU risk classification: HR 4 (versus HR 1.2, p = 0.009) for intermediate, and HR 15 (versus HR 6.5, p < 0.001) in high-risk groups, respectively. A fourth group defining very high-risk cases (≥ T2c clinical stage or grade group 5) was also proposed.

Conclusions

The new classification integrating TB findings we propose meaningfully improves the recurrence prediction after surgery in patients undergoing a TB-based diagnostic pathway, compared with standard EAU risk classification which is still relevant for patients undergoing only SB. External validation is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629

  2. 2.

    Spratt DE, Zhang J, Santiago-Jiménez M, Dess RT, Davis JW, Den RB, Dicker AP, Kane CJ, Pollack A, Stoyanova R, Abdollah F, Ross AE, Cole A, Uchio E, Randall JM, Nguyen H, Zhao SG, Mehra R, Glass AG, Lam LLC, Chelliserry J, du Plessis M, Choeurng V, Aranes M, Kolisnik T, Margrave J, Alter J, Jordan J, Buerki C, Yousefi K, Haddad Z, Davicioni E, Trabulsi EJ, Loeb S, Tewari A, Carroll PR, Weinmann S, Schaeffer EM, Klein EA, Karnes RJ, Feng FY, Nguyen PL (2018) Development and validation of a novel integrated clinical-genomic risk group classification for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 36(6):581–590

  3. 3.

    D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1998) Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:969–974

  4. 4.

    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777

  5. 5.

    Siddiqui MM, George AK, Rubin R, Rais-Bahrami S, Parnes HL, Merino MJ, Simon RM, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2016) Efficiency of prostate cancer diagnosis by MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy vs standard extended-sextant biopsy for MR-visible lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw039

  6. 6.

    van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75:570–578

  7. 7.

    Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109

  8. 8.

    Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H et al (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 64:713–719

  9. 9.

    Dell'Oglio P, Stabile A, Dias BH et al (2019) Impact of multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy on pre-therapeutic risk assessment in prostate cancer patients candidate for radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 37:221–234

  10. 10.

    Rayn KN, Bloom JB, Gold SA et al (2018) Added value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to clinical nomograms for predicting adverse pathology in prostate cancer. J Urol 200:1041–1047

  11. 11.

    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757

  12. 12.

    Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S et al (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 69:41–49

  13. 13.

    Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F et al (2017) Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol 72:282–288

  14. 14.

    Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV, Nix JW et al (2017) Higher prostate cancer grade groups are detected in patients undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy compared with standard biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol 41:101–105

  15. 15.

    Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N et al (2016) Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol 69:512–517

  16. 16.

    Ploussard G, Beauval JB, Lesourd M et al (2019) Added value of concomitant systematic biopsies for grade group prediction based on radical prostatectomy final pathology in MRI-positive patients undergoing fusion targeted biopsies. J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.418

  17. 17.

    Ouzzane A, Renard-Penna R, Marliere F et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy improves selection of patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low risk prostate cancer based on systematic biopsies. J Urol 194:350–356

  18. 18.

    Ploussard G, Beauval JB, Lesourd M et al (2019) Performance of systematic, MRI-targeted biopsies alone or in combination for prediction of unfavourable disease in MRI-positive low-risk prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02848

  19. 19.

    Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S et al (2014) Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol 192:385–390

  20. 20.

    Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V et al (2011) Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based models. J Urol 186:1818–1824

  21. 21.

    Reed A, Valle LF, Shankavaram U et al (2017) Effect of prostate magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy on radiation treatment recommendations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 97:947–951

  22. 22.

    Dix DB, McDonald AM, Gordetsky JB et al (2018) How would MRI-targeted prostate biopsy alter radiation therapy approaches in treating prostate cancer? Urology 122:139–146

  23. 23.

    Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M et al (2019) A novel nomogram to identify candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection among patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsies. Eur Urol 75:506–514

  24. 24.

    Cornud F, Roumiguié M, Barry de Longchamps N et al (2018) Precision matters in MR imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: evidence from a prospective study of cognitive and elastic fusion registration transrectal biopsies. Radiology 287:534–542

Download references

Author information

Protocol/project development: GP, BM, MR. Data collection or management: GP, CM, JB, ML, CA, JG, GL, AS, MS, CT, BM, MR; data analysis: GP, MR; manuscript writing/editing: GP, MR.

Correspondence to Guillaume Ploussard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ploussard, G., Manceau, C., Beauval, J. et al. Decreased accuracy of the prostate cancer EAU risk group classification in the era of imaging-guided diagnostic pathway: proposal for a new classification based on MRI-targeted biopsies and early oncologic outcomes after surgery. World J Urol (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03053-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Prostate cancer
  • Radical prostatectomy
  • Risk
  • Biopsy
  • Targeted biopsies
  • MRI
  • Fusion biopsies
  • Systematic biopsies