Literature DB >> 20221804

The impact of core biopsy fragmentation in prostate cancer.

Leonardo Oliveira Reis1, José Alberto Salvo Reinato, Daniel Carlos Silva, Wagner Eduardo Matheus, Fernandes Denardi, Ubirajara Ferreira.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Since accurate tumor localization and quantification are essential requisites avoiding prostate cancer overtreatment, we analyzed the impact of core fragmentation and the relation between core biopsy taken and pathological information in regard to cancer extension and aggressiveness (Gleason score).
METHODS: One hundred and ninety-nine men submitted to trans-rectal prostate biopsy by the same urologist between October 2006 and October 2008 were included, and the number of cores obtained by biopsy compared to the number of cores examined by the same pathologist.
RESULTS: Total core number obtained by biopsy was 21.54 (± 3.56) compared to 24.08 (± 4.77) examined by the pathologist, P < 0.01. Dividing prostate gland by areas such as base, mid and apical right and left, all areas showed statistically different core number between biopsy and pathological examination report (P < 0.01). Mean ratio of positive core cancer length was 0.41 (± 0.12) and 0.32 (± 0.8) comparing individual and overall cores analysis, respectively (P < 0.01). The mean Gleason score in the individual and overall cores analysis were 6.6 (6-9) and 6.3 (6-9), respectively, P < 0.01.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the ongoing trend for earlier diagnosis of increasing numbers of younger men with low-risk prostate cancer, this study is original and demonstrates the possibility of core fragmentation, explaining in part over- and under-staging. One core per container and an overall Gleason score and percentage of adenocarcinoma for each container are encouraged.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20221804     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-010-9720-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  24 in total

Review 1.  Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies.

Authors:  T A Stamey
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Clinical utility of the percentage of positive prostate biopsies in defining biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; J Fondurulia; M H Chen; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; A Wein; J P Richie
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies.

Authors:  Y Goto; M Ohori; A Arakawa; M W Kattan; T M Wheeler; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  The addition of interleukin-6 soluble receptor and transforming growth factor beta1 improves a preoperative nomogram for predicting biochemical progression in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael W Kattan; Shahrokh F Shariat; Ben Andrews; Kuichun Zhu; Eduardo Canto; Kazumasa Matsumoto; Masatoshi Muramoto; Peter T Scardino; Makoto Ohori; Thomas M Wheeler; Kevin M Slawin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-08-11       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Alphaeus M Wise; Thomas A Stamey; John E McNeal; John L Clayton
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; M Carmichael; C B Brendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Preoperative model for predicting prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy using percent of biopsy tissue with cancer, biopsy Gleason grade and serum prostate specific antigen.

Authors:  Stephen J Freedland; Martha K Terris; George S Csathy; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Joseph C Presti; Frederick Dorey; William J Aronson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  A new core-biopsy instrument with an end-cut technique provides prostate biopsies with increased tissue yield.

Authors:  L Häggarth; P Ekman; L Egevad
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Prognostic value of various morphometric measurements of tumour extent in prostate needle core tissue.

Authors:  F Brimo; R T Vollmer; J Corcos; K Kotar; L R Bégin; P A Humphrey; T A Bismar
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 10.  Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a critical appraisal of rationale and modalities.

Authors:  Scott E Eggener; Peter T Scardino; Peter R Carroll; Michael J Zelefsky; Oliver Sartor; Hedvig Hricak; Thomas M Wheeler; Samson W Fine; John Trachtenberg; Mark A Rubin; Mak Ohori; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Michel Rossignol; Lucien Abenhaim
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-10-15       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  8 in total

1.  Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin; Changhong Yu; Kristen L Zakian; Kazuma Udo; Peter T Scardino; James Eastham; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Cephalosporins periprostatic injection: are really effective on infections following prostate biopsy?

Authors:  Gianna Pace; Luca Carmignani; Carlo Marenghi; Gabriella Mombelli; Giorgio Bozzini
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  Prostate-specific antigen test result interpretation when combined with risk factors for recommendation of biopsy: a survey of urologist's practice patterns.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk; Nikhil Daljeet; Clement Ma; Karen Hersey; Alexandre Zlotta; Neil Fleshner
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2010-06-12       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Are 10-, 10-12-, or > 12-mm prostate biopsy core quality control cutoffs reasonable?

Authors:  Brunno C F Sanches; Ana Luiza Lalli; Wilmar Azal Neto; Athanase Billis; Leonardo Oliveira Reis
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  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

6.  Gleason underestimation is predicted by prostate biopsy core length.

Authors:  Leonardo O Reis; Brunno C F Sanches; Gustavo Borges de Mendonça; Daniel M Silva; Tiago Aguiar; Ocivaldo P Menezes; Athanase Billis
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  The importance of histopathologic review of biopsies in patients with prostate cancer referred to a tertiary uro-oncology center.

Authors:  Wagner Eduardo Matheus; Ubirajara Ferreira; Elimilson A Brandão; Aline A Ferruccio; Athanase Billis
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2019 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.541

8.  Impact of benign prostatic hyperplasia pharmacological treatment on transrectal prostate biopsy adverse effects.

Authors:  Marina Zamuner; Ciro Eduardo Falcone; Arnaldo Amstalden Neto; Tomás Bernardo Costa Moretti; Luis Alberto Magna; Fernandes Denardi; Leonardo Oliveira Reis
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2014-04-28
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.