Suppr超能文献

经会阴与经直肠途径前列腺系统模板整合磁共振融合靶向穿刺与根治性前列腺切除术标本间 Gleason 分级分组一致性比较。

Gleason Grade Group Concordance between Systematic Template Combining Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Targeted Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: A Comparison of Transperineal and Transrectal Approaches.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

出版信息

Urology. 2023 May;175:151-156. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.02.001. Epub 2023 Feb 23.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the Gleason grade (GG) discrepancy between biopsy (Bx) techniques (transperineal [TP] /transrectal [TR] approaches or multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging [mpMRI] targeted biopsy [TBx] / standard template biopsies [SBx]) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 310 prostate cancer (PCa) patients who underwent RP following either TP TBx combining SBx (20-core) (n = 105) or TR TBx combining SBx (12-core) (n = 205) from September 2019 to February 2021. The Bx GG was based on the core with the highest GG and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as grade group 2 or greater prostate adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

TP combined TBx and SBx (CBx) showed a better GG concordance (63.8% vs 57.1%) than the TR approach, but did not reach a statistical significance. TBx demonstrated a significantly higher csPCa detection than SBx in all patients including both approaches (70.2% vs 63.9%, P < .001). TR TBx showed a significantly higher concordance than TR SBx (52.2% vs 41.5%, P = .0.002) while TP TBx did not differ from TP SBx. TP CBx showed the highest Kappa coefficient (κ =0.48) followed by TR CBx (κ = 0.39). Thirty-eight of 69 (55.1%) cases with a GG1 diagnosis in CBx were upgraded to csPCa in RP. TR approach showed a trend of 2.8-fold risk to upgrade to RP csPCa than TP approach (P = .0.065).

CONCLUSION

The combination of SBx and TBx led to a better pathological concordance and lower upgrading rate for both TP and TR approaches to RP. With more SBx cores, TP CBx showed a better performance than TR CBx.

摘要

目的

评估活检(Bx)技术(经会阴 [TP] /经直肠 [TR] 方法或多参数磁共振成像 [mpMRI] 靶向活检 [TBx] /标准模板活检 [SBx])与根治性前列腺切除术(RP)标本之间的 Gleason 分级(GG)差异。

患者与方法

我们从 2019 年 9 月至 2021 年 2 月期间,共纳入 310 例接受 RP 的前列腺癌(PCa)患者,他们分别接受了经会阴 TBx 联合 SBx(20 芯)(n=105)或经直肠 TBx 联合 SBx(12 芯)(n=205)。Bx GG 基于 GG 最高的核心,并将临床显著前列腺腺癌(csPCa)定义为分级组 2 或更高的前列腺腺癌。

结果

TP 联合 TBx 和 SBx(CBx)的 GG 一致性(63.8%比 57.1%)优于 TR 方法,但未达到统计学意义。在包括两种方法在内的所有患者中,TBx 检测到的 csPCa 明显高于 SBx(70.2%比 63.9%,P<0.001)。TR TBx 比 TR SBx 显示出更高的一致性(52.2%比 41.5%,P=0.002),而 TP TBx 与 TP SBx 没有差异。TP CBx 显示出最高的 Kappa 系数(κ=0.48),其次是 TR CBx(κ=0.39)。在 CBx 中,69 例 GG1 诊断中有 38 例(55.1%)在 RP 中升级为 csPCa。TR 方法比 TP 方法升级为 RP csPCa 的风险高 2.8 倍(P=0.065)。

结论

SBx 和 TBx 的联合应用使 TP 和 TR 两种方法对 RP 的病理一致性和升级率都得到了提高。随着 SBx 芯数量的增加,TP CBx 比 TR CBx 表现更好。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验