Literature DB >> 24680457

Biopsy criteria for determining appropriateness for active surveillance in the modern era.

Oleksandr N Kryvenko1, H Ballentine Carter2, Bruce J Trock3, Jonathan I Epstein4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate algorithms to predict insignificant prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy (RP).
METHODS: Five hundred and fifty men (410 Caucasian, 100 African American [AA], and 40 others) with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level <10 ng/dL, T1c, 12-core biopsy, and biopsy Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 were categorized into training and validation sets. Six biopsy algorithms were tested for predicting insignificant (0.5 cm(3), organ confined, and Gleason score ≤6) cancer at RP. Cancers incorrectly predicted to be insignificant were ranked into 4 groups of increasing aggressiveness.
RESULTS: Original (Gleason score ≤6, PSA density ≤0.15, ≤2 positive cores, and maximum core involvement ≤50%) and modified Epstein criteria (Gleason score ≤6, PSA density ≤0.15, ≤2 positive cores, and unilateral cancer) had the highest negative predictive values-correct classification of insignificant cancer. Among cancers predicted to be insignificant in Caucasians, 29.9% cases using the original and 27% cases using the modified Epstein criteria had significant cancer at RP. However, more adverse findings at RP were misclassified as insignificant in only 3.5% and 2.2% of cases using the original and modified Epstein criteria, respectively. Of cancers predicted insignificant in AA men, 54.1% cases using the original and 51.6% cases using the modified Epstein criteria were misclassified as insignificant. Dominant anterior tumors were seen in 117 Caucasian (28.5%) and 44 AA men (44%).
CONCLUSION: The Epstein criteria maintain their accuracy in the modern era with extended biopsy sampling. The negative predictive values are lower in AA men, in part due to higher frequency of anterior tumors, where multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging should be recommended in AAs considering surveillance.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24680457     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  23 in total

Review 1.  Prostate Biopsy in Active Surveillance Protocols: Immediate Re-biopsy and Timing of Subsequent Biopsies.

Authors:  Jonathan H Wang; Tracy M Downs; E Jason Abel; Kyle A Richards; David F Jarrard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  [Fusion biopsies for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer : Implementation, benefits, and clinical aspects].

Authors:  L Püllen; B Hadaschik; D Eberli; T H Kuru
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  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

4.  Small cell-like glandular proliferation of prostate: a rare lesion not related to small cell prostate cancer.

Authors:  Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Sean R Williamson; Kiril Trpkov; Nilesh S Gupta; Daniel Athanazio; Martin K Selig; Paul Taylor Smith; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Merce Jorda
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2016-10-14       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study Within the Göteborg Randomised Screening Trial.

Authors:  Anna Grenabo Bergdahl; Ulrica Wilderäng; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Jan-Erik Damber; Maria Frånlund; Kjell Geterud; Ali Khatami; Andreas Socratous; Johan Stranne; Mikael Hellström; Jonas Hugosson
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Radical Prostatectomy Findings in White Hispanic/Latino Men With NCCN Very Low-risk Prostate Cancer Detected by Template Biopsy.

Authors:  Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Kirill Lyapichev; Felix M Chinea; Nachiketh Soodana Prakash; Alan Pollack; Mark L Gonzalgo; Sanoj Punnen; Merce Jorda
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 6.394

7.  Identifying in vivo DCE MRI markers associated with microvessel architecture and gleason grades of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Asha Singanamalli; Mirabela Rusu; Rachel E Sparks; Natalie N C Shih; Amy Ziober; Li-Ping Wang; John Tomaszewski; Mark Rosen; Michael Feldman; Anant Madabhushi
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Pathological characteristics of low risk prostate cancer based on totally embedded prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Gregory P Swanson; Jonathan I Epstein; Chul S Ha; Oleksandr N Kryvenko
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 4.104

9.  Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive-, robotic- or in-bore MRI target biopsy.

Authors:  Sascha Kaufmann; Giorgio I Russo; Fabian Bamberg; Lorenz Löwe; Giuseppe Morgia; Konstantin Nikolaou; Arnulf Stenzl; Stephan Kruck; Jens Bedke
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-01-27       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Comparison of Pathological Outcomes for Men with Low Risk Prostate Cancer from Diverse Practice Settings: Similar Results from Immediate Prostatectomy or Initial Surveillance with Delayed Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Gregory B Auffenberg; Susan Linsell; Apoorv Dhir; Stacie N Myers; Bradley Rosenberg; David C Miller
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-05-30       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.