Table 3.
mT-staging validation for the indication of RT treatment
| DRE/TRUS n (%) | mpMRI n (%) | p value | Prostatectomy piece n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T-category | ||||
| T1–T2a | 84 (93.7) | 24 (26.7) | < 0.001 | 23 (25.6) |
| T2b–T2c | 6 (6.7) | 54 (60.0) | 57 (63.3) | |
| T3–T4 | 0 | 12 (13.3) | 10 (11.1) | |
| Risk group | ||||
| Low-risk | 43 (47.8) | 13 (14.4) | < 0.001 | 10 (11.1) |
| Intermediate-risk | 37 (41.1) | 59 (65.6) | 65 (72.2) | |
| High-risk | 10 (11.1) | 18 (20.0) | 15 (16.7) | |
| Global reliability for T-category | 8 (8.8) | 64 (71.1) | < 0.001 | |
| Risk group change due to pathological analysis | 37 (41.1) | 15 (16.7) | < 0.001 | |
| Changes related to RT parameters (HT, Doses, CTV) | ||||
| Initial criteria | 45 (50.0) | 16 (17.8) | < 0.001 | |
| MSKCC criteria | 59 (65.6) | 18 (20.0) | ||
For patients whose final treatment consisted of RP (n = 90), the cT-and mT-category were compared to the pathologic tumour stage (pT-category), which allowed us to validate DRE/TRUS and mpMRI results. Furthermore, the analysis and comparisons related to RT treatment decisions were done for DRE/TRUS vs. mpMRI
RT radiotherapy, HT hormonal therapy, CTV clinical target volume