PI-RADS评分与1~2针穿刺阳性前列腺癌患者高危病理的相关性研究

doi:10.19558/j.cnki.10-1020/r.2019.02.012

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (758 KB) RICH HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要 目的：分析前列腺穿刺阳性针数为1~2针的前列腺癌患者行根治手术后前列腺标本的病理结果,评估前列腺影像报告和数据系统（PI-RADS）评分与根治术后高危病理结果的相关性。方法：回顾2007–2017年北京医院接受MRI检查后前列腺穿刺阳性针数1~2针且接受根治手术的的前列腺癌患者的临床资料,分析患者标本的病理危险度,评估PI-RADS评分与根治术后高危病理结果,Gleason评分改变或分期改变的相关性。进一步分析该组患者中术前评估为低危的患者病理结果出现高危的比例并讨论PI-RADS与其相关性。结果：99例患者中,根治术后高危病理类型患者49例（49.5%）。其中病理分期在T_2c及以上的患者共39例（39.4%）,根治术后标本Gleason评分≥8分的患者11例（11.1%）,切缘阳性患者17例（17.2%）。进一步分析显示在所有患者中含低危患者46例,其中16例（34.8%）患者根治术后出现高危病理类型,PI-RADS评分是该类患者出现根治术后高危病理类型的独立危险因素（P=0.014,OR=3.092,95%CI=1.257~7.606）。99例患者中,有65例（65.7%）患者术后Gleason评分或分期较术前升高,PI-RADS（P=0.043）评分可作为其独立危险因素。结论：穿刺阳性针数为1~2针的前列腺癌患者,根治手术术后病理有一定程度的Gleason评分上升或分期上升,且危险程度在一定程度上被低估,术前PI-RADS评分可以作为患者术后出现高危病理类型和分期升高的独立危险因素。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	侯惠民
	刘明
	程万里
	张伟
	郭潇潇
	张大磊
	王建业

关键词 ：前列腺癌, PI-RADS评分, 高危病理

Abstract：Objective: To analyze the pathological results of prostate specimens in patients with prostate cancer accepting the MRI, who had surgery with 1-2 needles of positive prostate biopsy, and to evaluate the correlation between PI-RADS score and pathological results. Methods: A retrospective analysis was done on prostate cancer patients from 2007 to 2017 in Beijing Hospital who had 1-2 positive biopsy needles after MRI and accepted the radical prostatectomy. The pathological risk of specimens was analyzed, and PI-RADS score and the pathological results, include high-risk pathological factors and upgrade/upstage of the radical surgery specimens, were evaluated. The proportion of patients who were preoperatively assessed as low risk and finally had the high-risk pathological results after radical surgery was further analyzed. The correlation between PI-RADS score and the pathological results was also analyzed. Results: Among the 99 patients, 49 (49.5%) were of high-risk pathological types after radical prostatectomy. There were 39 (39.4%) patients who had pathological staging in T2c and more, 11 (11.1%) patients obtained Gleason score over 8 and 17 (17.2%) patients had the positive margin. Among all patients, there were 46 patients with low-risk pathological results, among whom 16 (34.8%) patients had postoperative high-risk pathological types. PIRADS score was an independent risk factor for patients with low-risk pathological results who had postoperative high-risk pathological types (P=0.014, OR=3.092, 95%CI=1.257-7.606). Among the 99 patients, 65 (65.7%) had upgrade or/and upstage after radical surgery, and pi-rads (P=0.043) score could be used as an independent risk factor. Conclusion: For the prostate cancer patients with 1-2 needles positive needles biopsy after radical prostatectomy, there is a certain upgrade or upstage in pathology and underestimate of the high risk. Preoperative MRI PI-RADS score can be used as an independent risk factor for patients with postoperative high-risk pathological types and increased grade or stage.

Key words： PI-RADS scores high-risk pathological results

收稿日期: 2019-01-02

ZTFLH:

R737.25

基金资助:国家重点研发计划（2017YFC0840102）

通讯作者: 王建业,wangjy@bjhmoh.cn

引用本文:

侯惠民, 刘明, 程万里, 张伟, 郭潇潇, 张大磊, 王建业. PI-RADS评分与1~2针穿刺阳性前列腺癌患者高危病理的相关性研究[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2019, 8(2): 128-133.
HOU Huimin, LIU Ming, CHENG Wanli, ZHANG Wei, GUO Xiaoxiao, ZHANG Dalei, WANG Jianye. Correlation between PI-RADS score and high-risk pathological results of the prostate cancer with 1-2 needles biopsy. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE UROLOGY, 2019, 8(2): 128-133.

链接本文:

http://journal20.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_zgmnwk/CN/abstract/abstract1495.shtml 或 http://journal20.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_zgmnwk/CN/Y2019/V8/I2/128

[1] 完海洋,孙大开,平秦榕,等.保留性神经的根治性前列腺癌切除术研究进展.医学综述,2018,24(9):1833-1837.
[2] KASEL-SEIBERT M, LEHMANN T, ASCHENBACH RA, et al.Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol, 2016,85(4):726-731.
[3] WEINREB JC, BARENTSZ JO, CHOYKE PL, et al.PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol, 2016,69(1):16-40.
[4] 那彦群,叶章群,孙光,等.中国泌尿外科疾病诊断治疗指南.北京:人民卫生出版社,2014:61-89.
[5] TOSOIAN JJ, MAMAWALA M, EPSTEIN JI, et al.Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2015,33(30):3379-3385.
[6] PRENDEVILLE S, GERTNER M, MAGANTI M, et al.Role of MRI targeted biopsy in detection of prostate cancer harboring adverse pathological features of intraductal carcinoma and invasive cribriform carcinoma. J Urol, 2018,200(1):104-112.
[7] 张宇,朱一辰,张峰波,等.2008-2015年首都医科大学附属北京友谊医院前列腺穿刺活检状况的变迁.中华泌尿外科杂志,2016,37(11):819-822.
[8] MITHAL P, HOWARD LE, ARONSON WJ, et al.Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy patients do not predict long‐term oncological outcomes: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) cohort. BJU Int, 2016,117(2):244-248.
[9] EMERSON RE, KOCH MO, DAGGY JK, et al.Closest distance between tumor and resection margin in radical prostatectomy specimens-Lack of prognostic significance. Am J Surg Pathol, 2005,29(2):225-229.
[10] ACKERMAN D, BARRY JM, WICKLUND RA, et al.Analysis of risk factors associated with prostate cancer extension to the surgical margin and pelvic node metastasis at radical prostatectomy. J Urol, 1993,150(6):1845-1850.
[11] VAN DB, TOSCO L, BASTIAN P, et al.P097 revision of the definition of high-risk prostate cancer: cT2c remains an independent risk factor. Eur Urol Suppl, 2013,12(6):167-168.
[12] MARCUS DM, ROSSI PJ, NOUR SG, et al.The impact of multiparametric pelvic magnetic resonance imaging on risk stratification in patients with localized prostate cancer. Urology, 2014,84(1):132-137.
[13] 侯惠民,江炘,刘明,等.根治性前列腺切除术后切缘阳性的临床特征和影响因素分析.中华泌尿外科杂志,2018,39(10):740-744.
[14] BARENTSZ JO, RICHENBERG J, CLEMENTS R, et al.ESUR prostate Mr guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol, 2012,22(4):746-757.
[15] ZHAO C, GAO G, FANG D, et al.The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resenazlce imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Imaging, 2016,40(5):885-888.
[16] LEMAITRE L, PUECH P, PONCELET E, et al.Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer: morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Eur Radiol, 2009,19(2):470-480.
[17] PRENDEVILLE S, GERTNER M, MAGANTI M, et al.Role of MRI-targeted Biopsy in Detection of Prostate Cancer Harbouring Adverse Pathological Features of Intraductal Carcinoma and Invasive Cribriform Carcinoma. J Urol, 2018,200(1):104-113.
[18] GAO Y, JIANG CY, MAO SK, et al.Low serum testosterone predicts upgrading and upstaging of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Asian J Androl, 2016,18(4):639-643.
[19] PORCARO AB, SIRACUSANO S, DE LUYK N, et al.Low-risk prostate cancer and tumor upgrading in the surgical specimen: analysis of clinical factors predicting tumor upgrading in a contemporary series of patients who were evaluated according to the modified gleason score grading system. CurrUrol, 2017,10(3):118-125.
[20] TRUONG M, SLEZAK JA, LIN CP, et al.Development and multi-institutional validation of an upgrading risk tool for gleason 6 prostate cancer. Cancer, 2013,119(22):3992-4002.
[21] RUI CS, MING K.Prostate cancer in Asia: a collaborative report. Asian J Urol, 2014,1(1):15-29.