Nitya E Abraham1, Neil Mendhiratta1, Samir S Taneja2. 1. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 2. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. Electronic address: samir.taneja@nyumc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to 1) describe the patterns of repeat prostate biopsy in men with a previous negative biopsy and 2) identify predictors of prostate cancer diagnosis on repeat biopsy in these men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a university faculty group practice we identified 1,837 men who underwent prostate biopsy between January 1, 1995 and January 1, 2010. Characteristics of repeat biopsy were examined, including the indication for biopsy, the number of repeat biopsies performed, the number of cores obtained and total prostate specific antigen before biopsy. Features of prostate cancer diagnosed on repeat biopsy were examined, including Gleason score, number of positive cores, percent of tumor and treatment choice. Multivariable logistic regression was done to identify prostate cancer predictors. RESULTS: Initial biopsy was negative in 1,213 men. In 255 men a total of 798 repeat biopsies were performed. Of the 63 men diagnosed with prostate cancer Gleason score was 6 or less in 33 (52%), 7 in 22 (35%) and 8-9 in 8 (13%). When categorized by Epstein criteria, the rate of clinically insignificant cancer diagnosis decreased substantially by the third and fourth repeat biopsies. Repeat biopsy in men older than 70 years, biopsies including more than 20 cores and the fourth repeat biopsy were associated with an increased likelihood of prostate cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: In men selected for multiple repeat biopsies clinically significant cancer is found at each sampling round. Given the continued likelihood of cancer detection even by the fifth biopsy, early consideration of saturation or image guided biopsy may be warranted in the repeat biopsy population.
PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to 1) describe the patterns of repeat prostate biopsy in men with a previous negative biopsy and 2) identify predictors of prostate cancer diagnosis on repeat biopsy in these men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a university faculty group practice we identified 1,837 men who underwent prostate biopsy between January 1, 1995 and January 1, 2010. Characteristics of repeat biopsy were examined, including the indication for biopsy, the number of repeat biopsies performed, the number of cores obtained and total prostate specific antigen before biopsy. Features of prostate cancer diagnosed on repeat biopsy were examined, including Gleason score, number of positive cores, percent of tumor and treatment choice. Multivariable logistic regression was done to identify prostate cancer predictors. RESULTS: Initial biopsy was negative in 1,213 men. In 255 men a total of 798 repeat biopsies were performed. Of the 63 men diagnosed with prostate cancer Gleason score was 6 or less in 33 (52%), 7 in 22 (35%) and 8-9 in 8 (13%). When categorized by Epstein criteria, the rate of clinically insignificant cancer diagnosis decreased substantially by the third and fourth repeat biopsies. Repeat biopsy in men older than 70 years, biopsies including more than 20 cores and the fourth repeat biopsy were associated with an increased likelihood of prostate cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: In men selected for multiple repeat biopsies clinically significant cancer is found at each sampling round. Given the continued likelihood of cancer detection even by the fifth biopsy, early consideration of saturation or image guided biopsy may be warranted in the repeat biopsy population.
Authors: Michael Kongnyuy; Abhinav Sidana; Arvin K George; Akhil Muthigi; Amogh Iyer; Michele Fascelli; Meet Kadakia; Thomas P Frye; Richard Ho; Francesca Mertan; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Daniel Su; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Richard C Wu; Amir H Lebastchi; Boris A Hadaschik; Mark Emberton; Caroline Moore; Pilar Laguna; Jurgen J Fütterer; Arvin K George Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sandra Miriam Kawa; Hein Vincent Stroomberg; Signe Benzon Larsen; John Thomas Helgstrand; Birgitte Grønkær Toft; Andrew Julian Vickers; Klaus Brasso; Martin Andreas Røder Journal: J Urol Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Abhinav Sidana; Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Srinivas Vourganti; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Akhil Muthigi; Mahir Maruf; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.498
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
Authors: Basil Kaufmann; Karim Saba; Tobias S Schmidli; Stephanie Stutz; Leon Bissig; Anna Jelena Britschgi; Evodia Schaeren; Alexander Gu; Nicole Langenegger; Tullio Sulser; Daniel Eberli; Etienne X Keller; Thomas Hermanns; Cédric Poyet Journal: Prostate Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 4.012