Low heterogeneity of tumor grades in multiple MRI-targeted prostate biopsies argues for the aggregate method of grading
- PMID: 40576734
- DOI: 10.1007/s00428-025-04154-x
Low heterogeneity of tumor grades in multiple MRI-targeted prostate biopsies argues for the aggregate method of grading
Abstract
Prostate cancer diagnosis primarily relies on histological confirmation via needle core biopsy, with systematic 12-core biopsies (SB) being commonly used. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MRI-targeted biopsies have shown enhanced detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. This study compares two tumor grading methods-aggregate and individual grading-used in MRI-targeted biopsies to assess their correlation with the final ISUP Grade Group (GG) of the RPE. A cohort of 108 patients with ≥ 2 positive cores in at least one MRI-targeted biopsy, totaling 179 positive lesions, was analyzed. Systematic and MRI-targeted biopsies were correlated with RPE specimens. The mean highest ISUP GG for systematic biopsies was 2.77 (SD ± 1.29), compared to 2.62 (SD ± 1.13) for targeted biopsies using the aggregate method. Comparing the highest ISUP GG in systematic as well as targeted biopsies with the final ISUP GG of the RPE, exact correlation between GG was found in 70.1% (aggregate) and 66.4% (individual) for targeted biopsies and 58.1% for systematic biopsies. The results of the individual method showed slightly better correlation with the final ISUP GG from the RPE specimen in only 0.93%, while in 2.8% of cases, it resulted in inferior correlation compared to the aggregate method. Our findings suggest that the aggregate grading method of targeted biopsies is preferable due to its comparable predictive accuracy, lower workload, and alignment with existing clinical guidelines. This supports the ISUP's recommendation to use the aggregate method for MRI-targeted biopsies in clinical practice. Further research is needed to standardize reporting protocols for MRI-targeted biopsies and refine their integration into prostate cancer risk stratification models.
Keywords: Aggregate method; ISUP Grade Group; Individual method; MRI-targeted biopsy; Prostate cancer; Systematic biopsy.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
Diagnostic Effects of Omitting Systematic Biopsies in Prostate Cancer Screening.Eur Urol Oncol. 2025 Apr;8(2):435-443. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.10.002. Epub 2024 Oct 23. Eur Urol Oncol. 2025. PMID: 39443223 Clinical Trial.
-
MRI software and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(61):1-310. doi: 10.3310/PLFG4210. Health Technol Assess. 2024. PMID: 39367754 Free PMC article.
-
What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel.Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):250-266. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026. Epub 2017 Mar 21. Eur Urol. 2017. PMID: 28336078
-
Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and accuracy with radical prostatectomy specimens: a grading issue.World J Urol. 2025 Jul 25;43(1):456. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05787-y. World J Urol. 2025. PMID: 40711515
-
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 23;5:CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub5. PMID: 33871055 Free PMC article. Updated.
References
-
- Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P et al (2013) Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 189:2039–2046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.072 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Washington SL, Bonham M, Whitson JM et al (2012) Transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy does not reliably identify dominant cancer location in men with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 110:50–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10704.x - DOI - PubMed
-
- D’Elia C, Cerruto MA, Cioffi A et al (2014) Upgrading and upstaging in prostate cancer: from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy. Mol Clin Oncol 2:1145–1149. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2014.370 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Freedland SJ, Kane CJ, Amling CL et al (2007) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate needle biopsy specimens: risk factors and clinical implications. Urology 69:495–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.10.036 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Schnall MD, Pollack HM (1990) Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate gland. Urol Radiol 12:109–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02923982 - DOI - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources