Literature DB >> 15126786

A comparison of extended biopsy and sextant biopsy schemes for predicting the pathological stage of prostate cancer.

Yoshio Naya1, Atsushi Ochiai, Patricia Troncoso, R Joseph Babaian.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared the performance of the extended multisite directed biopsy strategy to the sextant component of this strategy for predicting the pathological stage and Gleason score of the radical prostatectomy specimen.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 157 men in whom prostate cancer was diagnosed by extended multisite directed biopsy and who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. The pretreatment variables of serum prostate specific antigen, prostate specific antigen density, biopsy specimen Gleason score, the location, number and percent of cancer containing cores, greatest tumor length in a single core and greatest percent of tumor in a single core were determined and compared with the pathological features of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimens. A comparison of the information obtained from sextant component cores of the extended biopsy strategy with that from all cores of the extended biopsy strategy was performed using chi-square statistics and ROC curve analysis.
RESULTS: When comparing the areas under the ROC curves, the extended multisite directed biopsy strategy was found to have greater predictive power for extraprostatic extension than the sextant core component of this biopsy scheme, although the difference was not significantly different. The sextant component was equivalent to the extended biopsy strategy for predicting the prostatectomy specimen Gleason score.
CONCLUSIONS: The extended biopsy strategy has better performance in the upper sensitivity ranges compared to the sextant technique for predicting extraprostatic extension.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15126786     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000127729.71350.7f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  6 in total

Review 1.  A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Hilco van Moerkerk; Lambertus A L M Kiemeney; J Alfred Witjes; Ferdinand Frauscher; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Standards for prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Marc A Bjurlin; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.309

3.  Development and validation of a virtual reality transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic biopsy simulator.

Authors:  Venu Chalasani; Derek W Cool; Shi Sherebrin; Aaron Fenster; Joseph Chin; Jonathan I Izawa
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing.

Authors:  Marc A Bjurlin; H Ballentine Carter; Paul Schellhammer; Michael S Cookson; Leonard G Gomella; Dean Troyer; Thomas M Wheeler; Steven Schlossberg; David F Penson; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-02-26       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Saturation biopsy protocol enhances prediction of pT3 and surgical margin status on prostatectomy specimen.

Authors:  Aurélien Descazeaud; Mark Rubin; Stéphanie Chemama; Stéphane Larré; Laurent Salomon; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; René Yiou; Dominique Chopin; Claude Abbou; Alexandre de la Taille
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-11-07       Impact factor: 3.661

6.  What is the ideal core number for ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy?

Authors:  Renato Caretta Chambó; Fábio Hissachi Tsuji; Flávio de Oliveira Lima; Hamilto Akihissa Yamamoto; Carlos Márcio Nóbrega de Jesus
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2014-11-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.