Optimal Method for Reporting Prostate Cancer Grade in MRI-targeted Biopsies.

Fang-Ming Deng, Bogdan Isaila, Derek Jones, Qinghu Ren, Park Kyung, Deepthi Hoskoppal, Hongying Huang, Leili Mirsadraei, Yuhe Xia, Jonathan Melamed
{"title":"Optimal Method for Reporting Prostate Cancer Grade in MRI-targeted Biopsies.","authors":"Fang-Ming Deng,&nbsp;Bogdan Isaila,&nbsp;Derek Jones,&nbsp;Qinghu Ren,&nbsp;Park Kyung,&nbsp;Deepthi Hoskoppal,&nbsp;Hongying Huang,&nbsp;Leili Mirsadraei,&nbsp;Yuhe Xia,&nbsp;Jonathan Melamed","doi":"10.1097/PAS.0000000000001758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When multiple cores are biopsied from a single magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted lesion, Gleason grade may be assigned for each core separately or for all cores of the lesion in aggregate. Because of the potential for disparate grades, an optimal method for pathology reporting MRI lesion grade awaits validation. We examined our institutional experience on the concordance of biopsy grade with subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) grade of targeted lesions when grade is determined on individual versus aggregate core basis. For 317 patients (with 367 lesions) who underwent MRI-targeted biopsy followed by RP, targeted lesion grade was assigned as (1) global Grade Group (GG), aggregated positive cores; (2) highest GG (highest grade in single biopsy core); and (3) largest volume GG (grade in the core with longest cancer linear length). The 3 biopsy grades were compared (equivalence, upgrade, or downgrade) with the final grade of the lesion in the RP, using κ and weighted κ coefficients. The biopsy global, highest, and largest GGs were the same as the final RP GG in 73%, 68%, 62% cases, respectively (weighted κ: 0.77, 0.79, and 0.71). For cases where the targeted lesion biopsy grade scores differed from each other when assigned by global, highest, and largest GG, the concordance with the targeted lesion RP GG was 69%, 52%, 31% for biopsy global, highest, and largest GGs tumors (weighted κ: 0.65, 0.68, 0.59). Overall, global, highest, and largest GG of the targeted biopsy show substantial agreement with RP-targeted lesion GG, however targeted global GG yields slightly better agreement than either targeted highest or largest GG. This becomes more apparent in nearly one third of cases when each of the 3 targeted lesion level biopsy scores differ. These results support the use of global (aggregate) GG for reporting of MRI lesion-targeted biopsies, while further validations are awaited.</p>","PeriodicalId":275221,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Surgical Pathology","volume":" ","pages":"44-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Surgical Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001758","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

When multiple cores are biopsied from a single magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted lesion, Gleason grade may be assigned for each core separately or for all cores of the lesion in aggregate. Because of the potential for disparate grades, an optimal method for pathology reporting MRI lesion grade awaits validation. We examined our institutional experience on the concordance of biopsy grade with subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) grade of targeted lesions when grade is determined on individual versus aggregate core basis. For 317 patients (with 367 lesions) who underwent MRI-targeted biopsy followed by RP, targeted lesion grade was assigned as (1) global Grade Group (GG), aggregated positive cores; (2) highest GG (highest grade in single biopsy core); and (3) largest volume GG (grade in the core with longest cancer linear length). The 3 biopsy grades were compared (equivalence, upgrade, or downgrade) with the final grade of the lesion in the RP, using κ and weighted κ coefficients. The biopsy global, highest, and largest GGs were the same as the final RP GG in 73%, 68%, 62% cases, respectively (weighted κ: 0.77, 0.79, and 0.71). For cases where the targeted lesion biopsy grade scores differed from each other when assigned by global, highest, and largest GG, the concordance with the targeted lesion RP GG was 69%, 52%, 31% for biopsy global, highest, and largest GGs tumors (weighted κ: 0.65, 0.68, 0.59). Overall, global, highest, and largest GG of the targeted biopsy show substantial agreement with RP-targeted lesion GG, however targeted global GG yields slightly better agreement than either targeted highest or largest GG. This becomes more apparent in nearly one third of cases when each of the 3 targeted lesion level biopsy scores differ. These results support the use of global (aggregate) GG for reporting of MRI lesion-targeted biopsies, while further validations are awaited.

mri活检中前列腺癌分级报告的最佳方法。
当对单个磁共振成像(MRI)靶向病变进行多核活检时,可以分别对每个核或对病变的所有核进行Gleason分级。由于可能存在不同的分级,因此病理学报告MRI病变分级的最佳方法有待验证。我们检查了我们的机构经验,当分级是基于个体与总体核心的基础上确定时,活检分级与随后的根治性前列腺切除术(RP)分级的一致性。317例患者(367个病变)接受了mri靶向活检和RP,目标病变等级被划分为(1)全局分级组(GG),聚集阳性核心;(2) GG最高(单活检核最高);(3)最大体积GG(癌线长最长的核心分级)。使用κ和加权κ系数将3个活检分级(等效、升级或降级)与RP中病变的最终分级进行比较。活检总体、最高和最大GG值分别为73%、68%和62%,与最终RP GG值相同(加权κ值:0.77、0.79和0.71)。对于由全局、最高和最大GG分配的目标病变活检分级评分不同的病例,活检全局、最高和最大GG肿瘤与目标病变RP GG的一致性分别为69%、52%和31%(加权κ: 0.65、0.68、0.59)。总体而言,靶向活检的全局、最高和最大GG与rp靶向病变GG基本一致,然而,靶向全局GG的一致性略好于靶向最高或最大GG。当3个靶向病变水平活检评分不同时,这一点在近三分之一的病例中更为明显。这些结果支持使用全局(总体)GG报告MRI病变靶向活检,但有待进一步验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信