Literature DB >> 23278942

Standard and saturation transrectal prostate biopsy techniques are equally accurate among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates.

Brian J Linder1, Igor Frank, Eric C Umbreit, Mark S Shimko, Nicolás Fernández, Laureano J Rangel, R Jeffrey Karnes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the ability of standard and saturation transrectal prostate biopsy techniques to predict appropriate candidates for active surveillance.
METHODS: Between 2005 and 2007, 500 consecutive patients underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy by a standard template (12 cores) or saturation template (≥18 cores, median 27 cores), with subsequent radical prostatectomy. Using the criteria of Gleason score ≤6, clinical stage T1 or T2a, prostate-specific antigen <10 and ≤33% of cores involved, 218 patients were potential candidates for active surveillance. Pathology results from the prostatectomy specimens were used to determine the accuracy of each biopsy technique. Biochemical failure after prostatectomy was evaluated using logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression.
RESULTS: A standard biopsy was carried out for 124 patients and saturation biopsy for 94 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of median age (P = 0.14), preoperative prostate-specific antigen (P = 0.52) and clinical stage (P = 0.23). Similar rates of Gleason score ≥7 at the time of radical prostatectomy were found, with 14% for standard biopsy and 15% for saturation biopsy (P = 0.70). Upstaging was shown in two standard biopsy patients (1.6%) and no saturation biopsy patients (P = 0.62). A multivariate analysis adjusting for prior prostate biopsy, preoperative prostate-specific antigen and clinical stage showed no difference in the rate of upgrading based on biopsy technique (P = 0.26). During follow up, 5-year biochemical failure-free survival estimates were not significantly different (P = 0.11).
CONCLUSIONS: In men with prostate cancer, standard and saturation transrectal prostate biopsies techniques are equally predictive of candidates for active surveillance.
© 2012 The Japanese Urological Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  active surveillance; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer; saturation biopsy

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23278942     DOI: 10.1111/iju.12061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Urol        ISSN: 0919-8172            Impact factor:   3.369


  5 in total

1.  Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation of men in active surveillance?

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Antonio Garufi; Giandomenico Priolo; Michele Pennisi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores?

Authors:  Vincenzo Scattoni; Carmen Maccagnano; Umberto Capitanio; Andrea Gallina; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-06-08       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; H Ballentine Carter; Abbey Lepor; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 14.432

4.  Risk of Upgrading from Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Pathology-Does Saturation Biopsy of Index Lesion during Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Help?

Authors:  Brian P Calio; Abhinav Sidana; Dordaneh Sugano; Sonia Gaur; Mahir Maruf; Amit L Jain; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-01-20       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Optimal biopsy approach for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Simona Ippoliti; Peter Fletcher; Luca Orecchia; Roberto Miano; Christof Kastner; Tristan Barrett
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-08-06       Impact factor: 3.039

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.