Literature DB >> 20490330

Current prostate biopsy protocols cannot reliably identify patients for focal therapy: correlation of low-risk prostate cancer on biopsy with radical prostatectomy findings.

Philip Quann1, David F Jarrard, Wei Huang.   

Abstract

Focal therapy appears to be an attractive alternative approach for patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa). Identifying suitable candidates is crucial to the success of focal therapy. Currently, standard transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy remains the widespread approach to evaluate patient suitability. In this study, we evaluated the ability of current biopsy protocols to predict cancer characteristics in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. We reviewed 4437 cases from 2000 to 2008 in our PowerPath database, and identified 158 patients with low-risk cancer, defined as a pre-biopsy PSA level <or= 10 ng/mL, unilateral, low tumor volume (<or=5%) and low to intermediate Gleason score (GS<or=6) on first positive prostate biopsy. The pathological characteristics of subsequent RP specimens were reviewed. We found that, of 158 patients with these criteria, 117 (74%) had bilateral cancer, 49 (31%) had increased tumor volume (>or= 10%), and 46 (29%) were upgraded to GS >or= 7 at RPs. When patients were stratified by total biopsy core numbers, extended biopsy core protocols were not significantly more reliable in identifying unilateral and low volume prostate cancer patients. One core positive on biopsy was not significantly superior to > 2 positive cores in predicting unilateral, low volume, low stage cancer at prostatectomy. These findings indicate that current standard prostate biopsy protocols have limited accuracy in identifying candidates for focal therapy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Prostate cancer; biopsy; focal therapy; prostatectomy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20490330      PMCID: PMC2872746     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol        ISSN: 1936-2625


  37 in total

1.  Secondary cancers in the prostate do not determine PSA biochemical failure in untreated men undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Authors:  T A Stamey; J M McNeal; A M Wise; J L Clayton
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  Cancer-related changes in prostate DNA as men age and early identification of metastasis in primary prostate tumors.

Authors:  Donald C Malins; Paul M Johnson; Edward A Barker; Nayak L Polissar; Thomas M Wheeler; Katie M Anderson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-04-17       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Metabolomic imaging for human prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Chin-Lee Wu; Kate W Jordan; Eva M Ratai; Jinhua Sheng; Christen B Adkins; Elita M Defeo; Bruce G Jenkins; Leslie Ying; W Scott McDougal; Leo L Cheng
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 17.956

4.  Individualization of the biopsy protocol according to the prostate gland volume for prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Saadettin Yilmaz Eskicorapci; Fuad Guliyev; Bulent Akdogan; Hasan Serkan Dogan; Ali Ergen; Haluk Ozen
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  A E Sehdev; C C Pan; J I Epstein
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.466

6.  Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  J L Gore; S F Shariat; B J Miles; D Kadmon; N Jiang; T M Wheeler; K M Slawin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Preoperative prediction of unifocal, unilateral, margin-negative, and small volume prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kenneth A Iczkowski; Deloar Hossain; Kathleen C Torkko; Junqi Qian; M Scott Lucia; Thomas M Wheeler; John C Rewcastle; David G Bostwick
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Topography of neovascularity in human prostate carcinoma.

Authors:  J A Siegal; E Yu; M K Brawer
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Ability to predict metastasis based on pathology findings and alterations in nuclear structure of normal-appearing and cancer peripheral zone epithelium in the prostate.

Authors:  Robert W Veltri; Masood A Khan; M Craig Miller; Jonathan I Epstein; Leslie A Mangold; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2004-05-15       Impact factor: 12.531

10.  Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate.

Authors:  K K Hodge; J E McNeal; M K Terris; T A Stamey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  5 in total

1.  Impact of immediate TRUS rebiopsy in a patient cohort considering active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Andre C King; Andrew Livermore; Timo A J Laurila; Wei Huang; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Temporal changes in the pathologic assessment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  M Scott Lucia; Adrie van Bokhoven
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-12

3.  Focal therapy for prostate cancer - where are we in 2011?

Authors:  Michael S Borofsky; Timothy Ito; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2011-08

Review 4.  Focal therapy in prostate cancer: modalities, findings and future considerations.

Authors:  Uri Lindner; John Trachtenberg; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 5.  Computer-aided Detection of Prostate Cancer with MRI: Technology and Applications.

Authors:  Lizhi Liu; Zhiqiang Tian; Zhenfeng Zhang; Baowei Fei
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 3.173

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.