Literature DB >> 22077660

Transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy does not reliably identify dominant cancer location in men with low-risk prostate cancer.

Samuel L Washington1, Michael Bonham, Jared M Whitson, Janet E Cowan, Peter R Carroll.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Diagnostic (exploratory cohort) Level of Evidence 2b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The widespread use of serum PSA testing followed by TRUS-guided biopsy have resulted in profound prostate cancer stage migration with many patients presenting with focal rather than multifocal disease. There is increasing interest in the use of focal rather than whole-gland treatment. However, current biopsy schemes may still miss cancer or, even when cancer is identified, its extent or grade might not be accurately characterized. In order for focal therapy to be effective, the area of highest tumour volume and/or grade needs to localized accurately. The aim of this study was to assess how well biopsy, as currently performed, locates the focus of highest prostate cancer volume and/or grade.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided extended core biopsy to identify the dominant tumour accurately in men with early stage prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with early stage, low-risk prostate cancer who subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) and had complete surgical specimens were identified. Re-review was performed by a single uropathologist using ImageJ software to identify tumour location, dominant grade (DG) and dominant volume (DV). Pathology findings were then compared with biopsy results.
RESULTS: A total of 51 men with early stage, low-risk prostate cancer, who had undergone RP, had complete specimens for review and a median of 15 biopsy cores taken for diagnosis and grading. Sixteen men had a single diagnostic biopsy, 21 had one repeat biopsy, and 14 had two or more repeat biopsies. Compared with surgical findings, biopsy correctly identified the sextant with the largest tumour volume in 55% (95% CI 0.5-0.6) of specimens and the highest grade in 37% (95 CI 0.3-0.5). No demographic or clinical factors were significantly associated with identification of DG. Interval between last biopsy and RP, total tissue length taken and total length of tumour identified were significantly associated with correct identification of DV.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that TRUS-guided biopsy detects and localizes DV better than it does DG. Even with an extended scheme, TRUS-guided biopsy does not reliably identify dominant cancer location in this low-risk cohort of men with early stage prostate cancer. TRUS-guided biopsy may perform better in similar men with low stage, but higher volume disease.
© 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22077660     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10704.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  16 in total

1.  Multimodal Imaging in Focal Therapy Planning and Assessment in Primary Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hossein Jadvar
Journal:  Clin Transl Imaging       Date:  2017-04-10

Review 2.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Overview of the technique, clinical applications in prostate biopsy and future directions.

Authors:  Hüseyin Cihan Demirel; John Warren Davis
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-03-01

3.  A direct comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection and prediction of aggressiveness.

Authors:  Alexander D J Baur; Julia Schwabe; Julian Rogasch; Andreas Maxeiner; Tobias Penzkofer; Carsten Stephan; Marc Rudl; Bernd Hamm; Ernst-Michael Jung; Thom Fischer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Inherently multimodal nanoparticle-driven tracking and real-time delineation of orthotopic prostate tumors and micrometastases.

Authors:  Tracy W Liu; Thomas D Macdonald; Cheng S Jin; Joseph M Gold; Robert G Bristow; Brian C Wilson; Gang Zheng
Journal:  ACS Nano       Date:  2013-04-05       Impact factor: 15.881

5.  Localization of higher grade tumor foci in potential candidates for active surveillance who opt for radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sung Kyu Hong; James A Eastham; Samson W Fine
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2013-12-30

Review 6.  Current approaches, challenges and future directions for monitoring treatment response in prostate cancer.

Authors:  T J Wallace; T Torre; M Grob; J Yu; I Avital; Bldm Brücher; A Stojadinovic; Y G Man
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2014-01-01       Impact factor: 4.207

7.  Application of transrectal ultrasound-guided repeat needle biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in Chinese population: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Yi Wang; Xizhi Wang; Jiang Yu; Jun Ouyang; Weidong Shen; Yibin Zhou; Jianquan Hou; Duangai Wen; Jinxian Pu; Yuxi Shan; Boxin Xue
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 1.852

8.  Targeted Prostate Biopsy Gleason Score Heterogeneity and Implications for Risk Stratification.

Authors:  Shane Mesko; Leonard Marks; Omar Ragab; Shyamal Patel; Daniel A Margolis; D Jeffrey Demanes; Mitchell Kamrava
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.787

9.  Perspectives on the clinical management of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Joel B Nelson
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.285

Review 10.  The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Massimo Valerio; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Massimo Lazzeri; Rodolfo Montironi; Paul L Nguyen; John Trachtenberg; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.