PURPOSE: The role of HistoScanning™ (HS) in prostate biopsy is still indeterminate. Existing literature is sparse and controversial. To provide more evidence according to that important clinical topic, we analyzed institutional data from the Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center, Hamburg. METHODS: Patients who received prostate biopsy and who also received HS were included in the study cohort. A single examiner, blinded to pathological results, re-analyzed all HS data in accordance with sextants of the prostate. Each sextant was considered as an individual case. Corresponding results from biopsy and HS were analyzed. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the prediction of a positive biopsy by HS was calculated. Furthermore, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were assessed according to different HS signal volume cutoffs (>0, >0.2 and >0.5 ml). RESULTS: Overall, 198 men were identified and 1,188 sextants were analyzed. The AUC to predict positive biopsy results by HS was 0.58. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for HS to predict positive biopsy results per sextant, depending on different HS signal volume cutoffs (>0, >0.2 and >0.5 ml) were 84.1, 27.7, 29.5 and 82.9 %, 60.9, 50.6, 28.8 and 79.7 %, and 40.1, 73.3, 33.1 and 78.8 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Positive HS signals do not accurately predict positive prostate biopsy results according to sextant analysis. We cannot recommend a variation of well-established random biopsy patterns or reduction of biopsy cores in accordance with HS signals at the moment.
PURPOSE: The role of HistoScanning™ (HS) in prostate biopsy is still indeterminate. Existing literature is sparse and controversial. To provide more evidence according to that important clinical topic, we analyzed institutional data from the Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center, Hamburg. METHODS:Patients who received prostate biopsy and who also received HS were included in the study cohort. A single examiner, blinded to pathological results, re-analyzed all HS data in accordance with sextants of the prostate. Each sextant was considered as an individual case. Corresponding results from biopsy and HS were analyzed. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the prediction of a positive biopsy by HS was calculated. Furthermore, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were assessed according to different HS signal volume cutoffs (>0, >0.2 and >0.5 ml). RESULTS: Overall, 198 men were identified and 1,188 sextants were analyzed. The AUC to predict positive biopsy results by HS was 0.58. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for HS to predict positive biopsy results per sextant, depending on different HS signal volume cutoffs (>0, >0.2 and >0.5 ml) were 84.1, 27.7, 29.5 and 82.9 %, 60.9, 50.6, 28.8 and 79.7 %, and 40.1, 73.3, 33.1 and 78.8 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Positive HS signals do not accurately predict positive prostate biopsy results according to sextant analysis. We cannot recommend a variation of well-established random biopsy patterns or reduction of biopsy cores in accordance with HS signals at the moment.
Authors: Felix K-H Chun; Alberto Briganti; Markus Graefen; Francesco Montorsi; Christopher Porter; Vincenzo Scattoni; Andrea Gallina; Jochen Walz; Alexander Haese; Thomas Steuber; Andreas Erbersdobler; Thorsten Schlomm; Sascha A Ahyai; Eike Currlin; Luc Valiquette; Hans Heinzer; Patrizio Rigatti; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mark H Kawachi; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Barry; J Erik Busby; Peter R Carroll; H Ballentine Carter; William J Catalona; Michael S Cookson; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Veda N Giri; George P Hemstreet; Richard J Howe; Paul H Lange; Hans Lilja; Kevin R Loughlin; James Mohler; Judd Moul; Robert B Nadler; Stephen G Patterson; Joseph C Presti; Antoinette M Stroup; Robert Wake; John T Wei Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Lucy A M Simmons; Philippe Autier; Frantiŝek Zát'ura; Johan Braeckman; Alexandre Peltier; Imre Romic; Arnulf Stenzl; Karien Treurnicht; Tara Walker; Dror Nir; Caroline M Moore; Mark Emberton Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Mischel G Neill; Ants Toi; Gina A Lockwood; Andrew Evans; Lisa Tammsalu; Neil E Fleshner Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Johan Braeckman; Philippe Autier; Christian Garbar; Miriam Pipeleers Marichal; Cristina Soviany; Rina Nir; Dror Nir; Dirk Michielsen; Harry Bleiberg; Lars Egevad; Mark Emberton Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-10-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: C Núñez-Mora; J M García-Mediero; P Patiño; C Orellana; A Garrido; A Rojo; D Rendón Journal: Actas Urol Esp Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 0.994
Authors: Saqib Javed; Eliot Chadwick; Albert A Edwards; Sabeena Beveridge; Robert Laing; Simon Bott; Christopher Eden; Stephen Langley Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jonas Schiffmann; Gisa Mehring; Pierre Tennstedt; Lukas Manka; Katharina Boehm; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter Hammerer; Markus Graefen; Georg Salomon Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jonas Schiffmann; Lukas Manka; Katharina Boehm; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Markus Graefen; Peter Hammerer; Georg Salomon Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Andrey Morozov; Vasiliy Kozlov; Juan Gomez Rivas; Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh; Evgeniy Bezrukov; Alexander Amosov; Eric Barret; Mark Taratkin; Georg Salomon; Thomas R W Herrmann; Ali Gozen; Dmitry Enikeev Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ali Sadeghi-Naini; Ervis Sofroni; Naum Papanicolau; Omar Falou; Linda Sugar; Gerard Morton; Martin J Yaffe; Robert Nam; Alireza Sadeghian; Michael C Kolios; Hans T Chung; Gregory J Czarnota Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.243