Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

The percentage of positive biopsy cores in predicting biochemical recurrence and adverse pathology in prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Ahmad Fathira Fitra ,
  • Niwanda Yogiswara ,
  • Wahjoe Djatisoesanto ,
  • Eric Chung ,
  • Lukman Hakim ,


Abstract

Background: Biochemical recurrence (BCR) occurs in more than one-third of prostate cancer (PCa) patients 10 years after radical prostatectomy. The percentage of positive biopsy cores (PPBC) obtained from prostate needle biopsy is suggested as one of the predictors of BCR. We aim to investigate the role of PPBC in predicting BCR and adverse pathology in PCa patients after RP.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted based on PRISMA guidelines from Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2022. We screened studies that met our inclusion criteria and NOS (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was utilized as the quality assessment tool. The primary outcome was BCR measured as Hazard Ratios (HRs). The secondary outcome was adverse pathology, including positive surgical margin (PSM), Extra-prostatic disease (EPD), and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI). Review Manager®5.4 was used as the statistical analysis tool.

Results: A total of 5971 patients were included from eleven eligible studies with overall good quality scores. Eleven studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and five of them were analyzed in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis demonstrated that higher PPBC has a 2.77 times risk of BCR (OR 2.77 (95% CI: 1.97, 3.9; p<0.00001) after RP. Similarly, it has significant results in SVI (OR 2.61 (95% CI: 1.19, 5.73; p=0.02). However, there were insignificant results in terms of EPD (p=0.17) and PSM (p=0.33).

Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) indicate that a high PPBC is strongly correlated with a greater risk of BCR and SVI, but not EPD and PSM in patients following RP.

Keywords: percentage of positive prostate biopsy core biochemical recurrence adverse pathology radical prostatectomy prostate cancer

References

  1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618–29.
  2. Penson DF. Urology Board ReviewLeslieS.W.: Urology Board Review. New York: McGraw Hill Medical2009. 521 pages. J Urol. 2010;183(6):2473.
  3. Partin AW, Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Peters CA, Dmochowski RR. Campbell-Walsh-Wein Urology twelfth ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2020.
  4. Montaño JJ, Barceló A, Franch P, Galceran J, Ameijide A, Pons J, et al. Prostate Cancer Survival by Risk and Other Prognostic Factors in Mallorca, Spain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Oct 24;18(21):11156.
  5. Cui P-F, Cong X-F, Gao F, Yin J-X, Niu Z-R, Zhao S-C, et al. Prognostic factors for overall survival in prostate cancer patients with different site-specific visceral metastases: A study of 1358 patients. World J Clin cases. 2020;8(1):54–67.
  6. Otsuka M, Kamasako T, Uemura T, Takeshita N, Shinozaki T, Kobayashi M, et al. Factors predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy among patients with clinical T3 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018;48(8):760–4.
  7. Joniau S, Hsu C-Y, Gontero P, Spahn M, Van Poppel H. Radical prostatectomy in very high-risk localized prostate cancer: Long-term outcomes and outcome predictors. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2012;46(3):164–71.
  8. Freedland SJ, Partin AW, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, Walsh PC. Radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T3a disease. Cancer. 2007;109(7):1273–8.
  9. Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Zincke H. Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int. 2005;95(6):751–6.
  10. Schreiber D, Rineer J, Sura S, Teper E, Nabhani T, Han P, et al. Radical prostatectomy for cT3-4 disease: an evaluation of the pathological outcomes and patterns of care for adjuvant radiation in a national cohort. BJU Int. 2010;108(3):360–5.
  11. Antunes AA, Srougi M, Dall’oglio MF, Crippa A, Campagnari JC, Leite KRM. The percentage of positive biopsy cores as a predictor of disease recurrence in patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2005;96(9):1258–63.
  12. Memis A, Ugurlu O, Ozden C, Oztekin CV, Aktas BK, Akdemir AO. The correlation among the percentage of positive biopsy cores from the dominant side of prostate, adverse pathology, and biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2011;27(8):307–13.
  13. Payne H. Management of locally advanced prostate cancer. Asian J Androl. 2009;11(1):81–7.
  14. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(10):932–42.
  15. Peller PA, Young DC, Marmaduke DP, Marsh WL, Badalament RA. Sextant prostate biopsies. A histopathologic correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer. 1995;75(2):530–8.
  16. Wills ML, Sauvageot J, Partin AW, Gurganus R, Epstein JI. The ability of Sextant Biopsies to Predict Radical Prostatectomy Stage. Urology. 1998;51(5):759–64.
  17. Zhou M, Hayasaka S, Taylor Jmg, Shah R, Proverbs-Singh T, Manley S, Et Al. Lack of Association of Prostate Carcinoma Nuclear Grading With Prostate Specific Antigen Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001;166(6):2193–7.
  18. Wittschieber D, Köllermann J, Schlomm T, Sauter G, Erbersdobler A. Nuclear Grading Versus Gleason Grading in Small Samples Containing Prostate Cancer: A Tissue Microarray Study. Pathol & Oncol Res. 2010;16(4):479–84.
  19. Tarján M, Tot T. Prediction of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer based on systematic core biopsies. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2006;40(6):459–64.
  20. Ravery V, Chastang C, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L, Delmas V, Boccon-Gibod L. Percentage of Cancer on Biopsy Cores Accurately Predicts Extracapsular Extension and Biochemical Relapse after Radical Prostatectomy for T1&ndash;T2 Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2000;37(4):449–55.
  21. Furuya Y, Fuse H, Nagakawa O, Masai M. Preoperative parameters to predict tumor volume in Japanese patients with nonpalpable prostate cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2002;7(2):109–13.
  22. Suekane S, Noguchi M, Nakashima O, Yamada S, Kojiro M, Matsuoka K. Percentages of positive cores, cancer length and Gleason grade 4/5 cancer in systematic sextant biopsy are all predictive of adverse pathology and biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2007;14(8):713–8.
  23. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71–n71.
  24. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008.
  25. Greene DR. Editorial Comment on: Systematic Assessment of the Ability of the Number and Percentage of Positive Biopsy Cores to Predict Pathologic Stage and Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(3):744–5.
  26. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, (OHRI). (2014). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/632432.
  27. Case BG. Risks Interpreting Odds. J Am Acad Child & Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013;52(3):319-324.
  28. Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016/05/21. 2016;31(4):337–50.
  29. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.
  30. Lotan Y, Shariat SF, Khoddami SM, Saboorian H, Koeneman KS, Cadeddu JA, et al. The Percent Of Biopsy Cores Positive For Cancer Is A Predictor Of Advanced Pathological Stage And Poor Clinical Outcomes In Patients Treated With Radical Prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Part 1):2209–14.
  31. San Francisco IF, Regan MM, Olumi AF, Dewolf WC. Percent of Cores Positive for Cancer Is A Better Preoperative Predictor Oof Cancer Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy Than Prostate Specific Antigen. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1492–9.
  32. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Amling CL, Dorey F, et al. Percent of Prostate Needle Biopsy Cores With Cancer is Significant Independent Predictor of Prostate Specific Antigen Recurrence Following Radical Prostatectomy: Results From SEARCH Database. J Urol. 2003;169(6):2136–41.
  33. Kestin LL, Goldstein NS, Vicini FA, Martinez AA. Percentage of Positive Biopsy Cores as Predictor of Clinical Outcome in Prostate Cancer Treated With Radiotherapy. J Urol. 2002;168(5):1994–9.
  34. Zapatero A, Adrados M, Torres L, Talaya MS, Cruz Conde A, Martin de Vidales C, et al. Positive prostate biopsy following radiotherapy can predict metastasis-free survival in localized prostate cancer. Reports Pract Oncol Radiother J Gt Cancer Cent Pozn Polish Soc Radiat Oncol. 2019. 2020;25(1):55–9.
  35. Grossfeld GD, Latini DM, Lubeck DP, Broering JM, Li Y-P, Mehta SS, et al. Predicting disease recurrence in intermediate and high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy using percent positive biopsies: results from CaPSURE. Urology. 2002;59(4):560–5.
  36. Russo GI, Cimino S, Castelli T, Favilla V, Urzì D, Veroux M, et al. Percentage of cancer involvement in positive cores can predict unfavorable disease in men with low-risk prostate cancer but eligible for the prostate cancer international: Active surveillance criteria. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2014;32(3):291–6.
  37. Mortensen MM, Mortensen PS, Borre M. Percentage of tumour-positive biopsy cores: An independent predictor of extraprostatic disease. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2009;43(2):109–13
  38. ikawa M, Tanaka T, Narita T, Noro D, Iwamura H, Tobisawa Y, et al. Impact of the Proportion of Biopsy Positive Core in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence in Patients with Pathological Pt2 and Negative Resection Margin Status after Radical Prostatectomy. Pathol & Oncol Res. 2020;26(4):2115–21.
  39. Morote J, Comas I, Planas J. Re: Nicolas Mottet, Joaquim Bellmunt, Erik Briers, et al. EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology. Eur Urol. 2018;73(5):e134–5.

How to Cite

Fitra, A. F., Yogiswara, N., Djatisoesanto, W., Chung, E. ., & Hakim, L. . (2023). The percentage of positive biopsy cores in predicting biochemical recurrence and adverse pathology in prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bali Medical Journal, 12(1), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.15562/bmj.v12i1.4075
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

HTML
6

Total
0

Share

Search Panel

Ahmad Fathira Fitra
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Niwanda Yogiswara
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Wahjoe Djatisoesanto
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Eric Chung
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal

Lukman Hakim
Google Scholar
Pubmed
BMJ Journal