Literature DB >> 7502425

The influence of prostate size on cancer detection.

R G Uzzo1, J T Wei, R S Waldbaum, A P Perlmutter, J C Byrne, E D Vaughan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine if cancer detection rates vary with prostate size using a sextant core biopsy pattern.
METHODS: We reviewed 1021 transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided sextant pattern prostate biopsies to determine if cancer detection varied based on prostate size. Prostate size was determined using a computer generated elliptical estimation method. Sextant core biopsies were taken, and the patients divided into groups based on estimated size of the prostate and biopsy outcome. Large prostates were those that were estimated by TRUS as 50 cc or more. Prostates were considered small if they were less than 50 cc. Groups were compared based on size and biopsy outcome.
RESULTS: Adenocarcinoma was detected in 33% (334 of 1021) of the patients. Large prostates were noted in 34% (346 of 1021), of which 23% (80 of 346) had cancer detected by sextant biopsy. Small prostates were noted in 66% (675 of 1021), of which 38% (254 of 675) had cancer detected. The difference in cancer detection in large and small glands using a sextant pattern was statistically significant (P < 0.01). Patients with positive biopsies had significantly smaller prostate sizes (40 cc +/- 26) when compared with those with negative biopsies (51 cc +/- 33) (P < 0.01). Only 14% (8 of 58) of patients with gland sizes 100 cc or greater had positive sextant biopsies while 49% (118 of 239) with prostates 25 cc or less had cancer detected. Multivariate statistical analysis was used to control for differences in age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, TRUS findings, and digital rectal examination between the large and small prostate groups. The difference in cancer detection persisted (P < 0.05)
CONCLUSIONS: Currently no evidence exists to support differing cancer rates based on gland size alone. Our cancer detection rate using a sextant pattern was higher in men with prostates less than 50 cc, and patients diagnosed with cancer had significantly smaller prostates than those with a negative sextant biopsy. Our data suggest that significant sampling error may occur in men with large glands, and more biopsies may be needed under these circumstances. The effects of tumor volume, focality, and specimen size in relation to overall gland size may contribute to these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7502425     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80353-7

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


  32 in total

1.  MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy.

Authors:  M Roethke; A G Anastasiadis; M Lichy; M Werner; P Wagner; S Kruck; Claus D Claussen; A Stenzl; H P Schlemmer; D Schilling
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  [Transrectal ultrasound of the prostate. Current status and prospects].

Authors:  M Zacharias; K V Jenderka; H Heynemann; P Fornara
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  CUA guidelines on prostate biopsy methodology.

Authors:  Assaad El-Hakim; Sabri Moussa
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 4.  When prostate cancer remains undetectable: The dilemma.

Authors:  Mahmoud Othman Mustafa; Louis Pisters
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-03

5.  Prostate biopsy: targeting cancer for detection and therapy.

Authors:  Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2006

6.  Optimizing prostate biopsy strategies for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2003

Review 7.  Biopsy standards for detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Bob Djavan; Markus Margreiter
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-03-07       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Longer biopsy cores do not increase prostate cancer detection rate: A large-scale cohort study refuting cut-off values indicated in the literature.

Authors:  Hasan Yılmaz; Ufuk Yavuz; Murat Üstüner; Seyfettin Çiftçi; Hikmet Yaşar; Bahar Müezzinoğlu; Ali Kemal Uslubaş; Özdal Dillioğlugil
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-07-31

Review 9.  Contemporary issues in the diagnosis of prostate cancer for the radiologist.

Authors:  Richard Clements
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-04-01       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Comparison of elastic scattering spectroscopy with histology in ex vivo prostate glands: potential application for optically guided biopsy and directed treatment.

Authors:  O M A'Amar; L Liou; E Rodriguez-Diaz; A De las Morenas; I J Bigio
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 3.161

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.