Literature DB >> 21679984

Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy.

Hashim Uddin Ahmed1, Yipeng Hu, Tim Carter, Nimalan Arumainayagam, Emilie Lecornet, Alex Freeman, David Hawkes, Dean C Barratt, Mark Emberton.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Definitions of prostate cancer risk are limited since accurate attribution of the cancer grade and burden is not possible due to the random and systematic errors associated with transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. Transperineal prostate mapping biopsy may have a role in accurate risk stratification. We defined the transperineal prostate mapping biopsy characteristics of clinically significant disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-dimensional model of each gland and individual cancer was reconstructed using 107 radical whole mount specimens. We performed 500 transperineal prostate mapping simulations per case by varying needle targeting errors to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive value to detect lesions 0.2 ml or greater, or 0.5 ml or greater. Definitions of clinically significant cancer based on a combination of Gleason grade and cancer burden (cancer core length) were derived.
RESULTS: Mean±SD patient age was 61±6.4 years (range 44 to 74) and mean prostate specific antigen was 9.7±5.9 ng/ml (range 0.8 to 36.2). We reconstructed 665 foci. The total cancer core length from all positive biopsies for a particular lesion that detected more than 95% of lesions 0.5 ml or greater and 0.2 ml or greater was 10 mm or greater and 6 mm or greater, respectively. The maximum cancer core length that detected more than 95% of lesions 0.5 ml or greater and 0.2 ml or greater was 6 mm or greater and 4 mm or greater, respectively. We combined these cancer burden thresholds with dominant and nondominant Gleason pattern 4 to derive 2 definitions of clinically significant disease.
CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal prostate mapping may provide an effective method to risk stratify men with localized prostate cancer. The definitions that we present require prospective validation.
Copyright © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21679984     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.147

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


  84 in total

1.  Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 2.  Focal therapy of prostate cancer: evidence-based analysis for modern selection criteria.

Authors:  Michael R Abern; Matvey Tsivian; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla.

Authors:  M C Roethke; T H Kuru; S Schultze; D Tichy; A Kopp-Schneider; M Fenchel; H-P Schlemmer; B A Hadaschik
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Initial experience with electronic tracking of specific tumor sites in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Sonn; Christopher P Filson; Edward Chang; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Malu Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 3.498

5.  Diagnostic value of MRI-based PSA density in predicting transperineal sector-guided prostate biopsy outcomes.

Authors:  Findlay MacAskill; Su-Min Lee; David Eldred-Evans; Wahyu Wulaningsih; Rick Popert; Konrad Wolfe; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Giles Rottenberg; Sidath H Liyanage; Peter Acher
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 2.370

6.  Multiparametric MRI for detection of radiorecurrent prostate cancer: added value of apparent diffusion coefficient maps and dynamic contrast-enhanced images.

Authors:  M Abd-Alazeez; N Ramachandran; N Dikaios; H U Ahmed; M Emberton; A Kirkham; M Arya; S Taylor; S Halligan; S Punwani
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 5.554

7.  Role of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Richard C Wu; Amir H Lebastchi; Boris A Hadaschik; Mark Emberton; Caroline Moore; Pilar Laguna; Jurgen J Fütterer; Arvin K George
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy.

Authors:  Hannes Cash; Andreas Maxeiner; Carsten Stephan; Thomas Fischer; Tahir Durmus; Josephine Holzmann; Patrick Asbach; Matthias Haas; Stefan Hinz; Jörg Neymeyer; Kurt Miller; Karsten Günzel; Carsten Kempkensteffen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging in delineating clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Karim Chamie; Geoffrey A Sonn; David S Finley; Nelly Tan; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Shyam Natarajan; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Sonn; Edward Chang; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Malu Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.