Literature DB >> 22498218

Are repeat prostate biopsies safe? A cohort analysis from the SEARCH database.

Ryan P Kopp1, Sean P Stroup, Florian R Schroeck, Stephen J Freedland, Frederick Millard, Martha K Terris, William J Aronson, Joseph C Presti, Christopher L Amling, Christopher J Kane.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patients question whether multiple biopsy sessions cause worse prostate cancer outcomes. Therefore, we investigated whether there is an association between the number of prior biopsy sessions and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men in the SEARCH (Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital) database who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1988 and 2010 after a known number of prior biopsies were included in the analysis. Number of biopsy sessions (range 1 to 8) was examined as a continuous and categorical (1, 2 and 3 to 8) variable. Biochemical recurrence was defined as a prostate specific antigen greater than 0.2 ng/ml, 2 values at 0.2 ng/ml or secondary treatment for an increased prostate specific antigen. The association between number of prior biopsy sessions and biochemical recurrence was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from biochemical recurrence were compared among the groups.
RESULTS: Of the 2,739 men in the SEARCH database who met the inclusion criteria 2,251 (82%) had only 1 biopsy, 365(13%) had 2 biopsies and 123 (5%) had 3 or more biopsies. More biopsy sessions were associated with higher prostate specific antigen (p<0.001), greater prostate weight (p<0.001), lower biopsy Gleason sum (p=0.01) and more organ confined (pT2) disease (p=0.017). The Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated no association between number of biopsy sessions as a continuous or categorical variable and biochemical recurrence. Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from biochemical recurrence were similar across biopsy groups (log rank p=0.211).
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple biopsy sessions are not associated with an increased risk of biochemical recurrence in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Multiple biopsy sessions appear to select for a low risk cohort.
Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22498218      PMCID: PMC3409579          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.083

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


  17 in total

Review 1.  Saturation biopsy for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer.

Authors:  J Stephen Jones
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2007-04-08       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Age, prostate-specific antigen, and digital rectal examination as determinants of the probability of having prostate cancer.

Authors:  S R Potter; W Horniger; M Tinzl; G Bartsch; A W Partin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Trends in reporting Gleason score 1991 to 2001: changes in the pathologist's practice.

Authors:  Khurshid R Ghani; Ken Grigor; David N Tulloch; Prasad R Bollina; S Alan McNeill
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  The significance of prior benign needle biopsies in men subsequently diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; G Akingba; H B Carter
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop?

Authors:  B Djavan; V Ravery; A Zlotta; P Dobronski; M Dobrovits; M Fakhari; C Seitz; M Susani; A Borkowski; L Boccon-Gibod; C C Schulman; M Marberger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Prostate cancer detection in men with prior high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical prostate biopsy.

Authors:  S Park; K Shinohara; G D Grossfeld; P R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  Inflammation, infection, and prostate cancer.

Authors:  Eric A Klein; Robert Silverman
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.309

8.  The incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections after prostate biopsy--are fluoroquinolones still effective prophylaxis?

Authors:  Joseph Feliciano; Ervin Teper; Michael Ferrandino; Richard J Macchia; William Blank; Ivan Grunberger; Ivan Colon
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Prostate cancers diagnosed at repeat biopsy are smaller and less likely to be high grade.

Authors:  Nelly Tan; Brian R Lane; Jianbo Li; Ayman S Moussa; Meghan Soriano; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE).

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Deborah P Lubeck; Shilpa S Mehta; Peter R Carroll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  4 in total

1.  Linkage of data from diverse data sources (LDS): a data combination model provides clinical data of corresponding specimens in biobanking information system.

Authors:  Okyaz Eminaga; Enver Özgür; Axel Semjonow; Jan Herden; Ilgar Akbarov; Ali Tok; Udo Engelmann; Sebastian Wille
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy in Men With Previous Negative Biopsies: Impact on Repeat Biopsy Strategies.

Authors:  Neil Mendhiratta; Xiaosong Meng; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; James S Wysock; Michael Fenstermaker; Richard Huang; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Ming Zhou; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Association between previous negative biopsies and lower rates of progression during active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Mattia Luca Piccinelli; Stefano Luzzago; Giulia Marvaso; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Noriyoshi Miura; Victor M Schuettfort; Keiichiro Mori; Alberto Colombo; Matteo Ferro; Francesco A Mistretta; Nicola Fusco; Giuseppe Petralia; Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa; Shahrokh F Shariat; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Ottavio de Cobelli; Gennaro Musi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 3.661

4.  The Influence of Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen on the Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy versus Saturation Biopsy in Patients with Previous Negative Biopsy.

Authors:  Chao-Hsiang Chang; Hung-Chieh Chiu; Wei-Ching Lin; Tzu-Lung Ho; Han Chang; Yi-Huei Chang; Chi-Ping Huang; Hsi-Chin Wu; Chi-Rei Yang; Po-Fan Hsieh
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 3.411

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.