Sangjun Yoo1, Juhyun Park1, Sung Yong Cho1, Min Chul Cho1, Ja Hyeon Ku2, Hwancheol Son1, Cheol Kwak2, Hyeon Hoe Kim2, Hyeon Jeong3. 1. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Sindaebang 2(i)-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 07061, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Sindaebang 2(i)-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 07061, Republic of Korea. drjeongh@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer in the setting of repeat prostate biopsy using trans-rectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. METHODS: A total of 636 patients who underwent repeat prostate biopsy were included. The patients were divided into two groups according to the repeat biopsy results (with vs. without prostate cancer). A multivariable analysis was performed to assess the predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was detected in 98 patients (15.4%). Although there was no difference in the prostate-specific antigen velocity, the prostate-specific antigen density was higher in the patients with prostate cancer at the initial (0.14 vs. 0.17 ng/mL/cc, p = 0.049) and repeat biopsies (0.17 vs. 0.26 ng/mL/cc, p < 0.001). The proportions of the patients who met the active surveillance criteria were as follows: 22.4% (Johns Hopkins), 30.6% (University of Toronto), 32.7% (University of California at San Francisco), 30.6% (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance), 27.6% (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center), and 13.3% (University of Miami). In the multivariable analysis, age, hypoechoic lesion on trans-rectal ultrasonography, and prostate-specific antigen density at the repeat biopsy were the significant predictors for prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Trans-rectal ultrasonography before repeat prostate biopsy and the prostate-specific antigen density are useful for selecting patients with a high probability for prostate cancer if repeat trans-rectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy is considered. In addition, these are also helpful for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer in the setting of repeat prostate biopsy using trans-rectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. METHODS: A total of 636 patients who underwent repeat prostate biopsy were included. The patients were divided into two groups according to the repeat biopsy results (with vs. without prostate cancer). A multivariable analysis was performed to assess the predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. RESULTS:Prostate cancer was detected in 98 patients (15.4%). Although there was no difference in the prostate-specific antigen velocity, the prostate-specific antigen density was higher in the patients with prostate cancer at the initial (0.14 vs. 0.17 ng/mL/cc, p = 0.049) and repeat biopsies (0.17 vs. 0.26 ng/mL/cc, p < 0.001). The proportions of the patients who met the active surveillance criteria were as follows: 22.4% (Johns Hopkins), 30.6% (University of Toronto), 32.7% (University of California at San Francisco), 30.6% (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance), 27.6% (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center), and 13.3% (University of Miami). In the multivariable analysis, age, hypoechoic lesion on trans-rectal ultrasonography, and prostate-specific antigen density at the repeat biopsy were the significant predictors for prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Trans-rectal ultrasonography before repeat prostate biopsy and the prostate-specific antigen density are useful for selecting patients with a high probability for prostate cancer if repeat trans-rectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy is considered. In addition, these are also helpful for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Martin G Sanda; Dennis L Broyles; Sanghyuk S Shin; Chris H Bangma; John T Wei; Alan W Partin; George G Klee; Kevin M Slawin; Leonard S Marks; Ron H N van Schaik; Daniel W Chan; Lori J Sokoll; Amabelle B Cruz; Isaac A Mizrahi; William J Catalona Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Caroline Hoeks; Stefan A W Bouwense; Henkjan Huisman; Derya Yakar; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Charlie J Gillis; Thomas M Southall; Robert Wilson; Michelle Anderson; Jennifer Young; Richard Hewitt; Matthew Andrews Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 2.052