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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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