Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • clinical
  • Published:

Histopathological concordance between prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens—implications of transrectal and transperineal biopsy approaches

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 27, pages 312–317 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the histopathological concordance rates between prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens according to the applied biopsy approach (transrectal or transperineal).

Methods

We studied patients who had been newly diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer and who underwent a radical prostatectomy between 2018 and 2022. Patients were included if they underwent a prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and if they had not been previously treated for prostate cancer. Histopathological grading on prostate biopsies was compared with that on radical prostatectomy specimens. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of the applied biopsy approach on histopathological concordance. Additional analyses were performed to assess the effect of the applied biopsy approach on American Urological Association risk group migration, defined as any change in risk group after radical prostatectomy.

Results

In total, 1058 men were studied, of whom 49.3% (522/1058) and 50.7% (536/1058) underwent transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsies, respectively. Histopathological disconcordance was observed in 37.8% (400/1058) of men while American Urological Association risk group migration was observed in 30.2% (320/1058) of men. A transperineal biopsy approach was found to be independently associated with higher histopathological concordance rates (OR 1.33 [95% CI 1.01–1.75], p = 0.04) and less American Urological Association risk group migration (OR 0.70 [95% CI 0.52–0.93], p = 0.01).

Conclusions

The use of a transperineal biopsy approach improved histopathological concordance rates compared to the use of a transrectal biopsy approach. A transperineal biopsy approach may provide more accurate risk stratification for clinical decision-making. Despite recent improvements, histopathologic concordance remains suboptimal and should be considered before initiating management.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The research data for this study is available from the corresponding authors on reasonable requests.

References

  1. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79:243–62.

  2. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. Grading committee. The 2014 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40:244–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van Leenders GJLH, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, Evans AJ, Kristiansen G, Kweldam CF, et al. ISUP grading workshop panel members. The 2019 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44:e87–99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Chierigo F, Mori K, Tian Z, Terrone C, et al. Pattern of Biopsy Gleason grade group 5 (4 + 5 vs 5 + 4 vs 5 + 5) predicts survival after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8:710–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Chierigo F, Flammia RS, Tian Z, Shariat SF, et al. Nomogram predicting downgrading in national comprehensive cancer network high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8:1133–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, Hurtado-Coll A, Peters J, Harewood L, et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU Int. 2011;108:E202–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Taylor LG, Canfield SE, Du XL. Review of major adverse effects of androgen-deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2009;115:2388–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Diamand R, Oderda M, Al Hajj Obeid W, Albisinni S, Van Velthoven R, Fasolis G, et al. A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2019;37:2109–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N. Engl J Med. 2020;382:917–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Goel S, Shoag JE, Gross MD, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Robinson B, Khani F, et al. Concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology in the era of targeted biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3:10–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Miller J, Perumalla C, Heap G. Complications of transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75:48–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X, Bangma CH, Schröder FH, Roobol MJ. Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1110–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Moon DA, et al. Sepsis and “superbugs”: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int. 2014;114:384–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zattoni F, Marra G, Kasivisvanathan V, Grummet J, Nandurkar R, Ploussard G, et al. The detection of prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies is superior with the transperineal vs the transrectal approach. a European association of urology-young academic urologists prostate cancer working group multi-institutional study. J Urol. 2022;208:830–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rai BP, Mayerhofer C, Somani BK, Kallidonis P, Nagele U, Tokas T. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided transperineal versus magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy-a systematic review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4:904–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76:340–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M, Ahmed HU, Barrett T, Giganti F, et al. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radio. 2020;30:5404–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, et al. The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75:582–90.

  19. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199:683–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1019–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Qu LG, Al-Shawi M, Howard T, Papa N, Poyet C, Kelly B, et al. Gleason grade accuracy of transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsies in MRI-naïve patients. Int Urol Nephrol. 2021;53:2445–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marra G, Eldred-Evans D, Challacombe B, Van Hemelrijck M, Polson A, Pomplun S, et al. Pathological concordance between prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy using transperineal sector mapping biopsies: validation and comparison with transrectal biopsies. Urol Int. 2017;99:168–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Evans SM, Patabendi Bandarage V, Kronborg C, Earnest A, Millar J, Clouston D. Gleason group concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens: a cohort study from prostate cancer outcome registry - Victoria. Prostate Int. 2016;4:145–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zattoni F, Marra G, Martini A, Kasivisvanathan V, Grummet J, Harkin T, et al. Is there an impact of transperineal vs. transrectal mri-targeted biopsy on the risk of upgrading in final pathology in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy? An EAU-YAU prostate cancer working group multi-institutional study. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9:621–8.

  25. Mai Z, Zhou Z, Yan W, Xiao Y, Zhou Y, Liang Z, et al. The transverse and vertical distribution of prostate cancer in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1205.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cowan T, Baker E, McCray G, Reeves F, Houlihan K, Johns-Putra L. Detection of clinically significant cancer in the anterior prostate by transperineal biopsy. BJU Int. 2020;126:33–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hagens MJ, Luining WI, Jager A, Donswijk ML, Cheung Z, Wondergem M, et al. The diagnostic value of PSMA PET/CT in men with newly diagnosed unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:1238–43.

  28. Hoeh B, Flammia R, Hohenhorst L, Sorce G, Chierigo F, Tian Z, et al. Up- and downgrading in single intermediate-risk positive biopsy core prostate cancer. Prostate Int. 2022;10:21–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ranasinghe W, Reichard CA, Nyame YA, Sundi D, Tosoian JJ, Wilkins L, et al. Downgrading from Biopsy grade group 4 prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for high or very high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020;204:748–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bullock N, Simpkin A, Fowler S, Varma M, Kynaston H, Narahari K. Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer treated with surgery in the United Kingdom: trends and risk factors from the British Association of Urological Surgeons Radical Prostatectomy Registry. BMC Urol. 2019;19:94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Bulten W, Pinckaers H, van Boven H, Vink R, de Bel T, van Ginneken B, et al. Automated deep-learning system for Gleason grading of prostate cancer using biopsies: a diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. De Luca S, Fiori C, Bollito E, Garrou D, Aimar R, Cattaneo G, et al. Risk of Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 prostate cancer upgrading at radical prostatectomy is significantly reduced by targeted versus standard biopsy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020;72:360–8.

  33. Mandel P, Wenzel M, Hoeh B, Welte MN, Preisser F, Inam T, et al. Immunohistochemistry for prostate Biopsy-impact on histological prostate cancer diagnoses and clinical decision making. Curr Oncol. 2021;28:2123–33.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: M. J. Hagens, L. L. A. Ribbert.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute – Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    M. J. Hagens, L. L. A. Ribbert, H. Veerman, K. Barwari, A. N. Vis, P. J. van Leeuwen & H. G. van der Poel

  2. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Boelelaan, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    M. J. Hagens, A. Jager, H. Veerman, A. N. Vis, P. J. van Leeuwen & H. G. van der Poel

  3. Prostate Cancer Network the Netherlands, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    M. J. Hagens, A. Jager, H. Veerman, K. Barwari, B. Boodt, R. E. de Bruijn, A. Claessen, M. R. Leter, M. Smeenge, T. A. Roeleveld, S. P. Rynja, M. Schaaf, S. Weltings, A. N. Vis & H. G. van der Poel

  4. Department of Urology, Andros Clinics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    K. Barwari

  5. Department of Urology, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, the Netherlands

    B. Boodt

  6. Department of Urology, Ziekenhuis Amstelland, Amstelveen, the Netherlands

    R. E. de Bruijn

  7. Department of Urology, Rode Kruis Ziekenhuis, Beverwijk, the Netherlands

    A. Claessen

  8. Department of Urology, Dijklander Ziekenhuis, Hoorn, the Netherlands

    M. R. Leter

  9. Department of Statistics, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    V. van der Noort

  10. Department of Urology, St Jansdal Ziekenhuis, Harderwijk, the Netherlands

    M. Smeenge

  11. Department of Urology, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, the Netherlands

    T. A. Roeleveld

  12. Department of Urology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, the Netherlands

    S. P. Rynja

  13. Department of Urology, BovenIJ Ziekenhuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    M. Schaaf

  14. Department of Urology, Zaans Medisch Centrum, Zaandam, the Netherlands

    S. Weltings

  15. Department of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute – Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    E. Bekers

Authors
  1. M. J. Hagens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. L. A. Ribbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Jager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Veerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. Barwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. Boodt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. E. de Bruijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. Claessen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. R. Leter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. V. van der Noort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. M. Smeenge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. T. A. Roeleveld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. S. P. Rynja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. M. Schaaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. S. Weltings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. A. N. Vis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. E. Bekers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. P. J. van Leeuwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. H. G. van der Poel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study concept and design: MH, LR, PVL, HVP; Statistical Analysis: MH, LR, VVN; Interpretation: MH, LR, PVL, HVP; Initial drafting of manuscript: MH, LR; Critical review: AJ, HV, KB, BB, RDB, AC, ML, MS, TR, SR, MS, SW, AV, PVL, HVP.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. J. Hagens.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hagens, M.J., Ribbert, L.L.A., Jager, A. et al. Histopathological concordance between prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens—implications of transrectal and transperineal biopsy approaches. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 27, 312–317 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00714-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-023-00714-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links