PURPOSE: We assessed the ability of diagnostic tests to distinguish clinically unimportant cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We correlated T stage (based on digital examination and ultrasound), prostate specific antigen (PSA), PSA density and pathological features of cancer in systematic biopsy specimens with features of cancer in 170 radical prostatectomy specimens. Clinically unimportant cancers were defined as small (0.5 cm.3 or less), well or moderately differentiated and confined to the prostate. RESULTS: Of the patients 10% had an unimportant cancer. On logistic regression analysis the 2 significant predictors were maximum length of cancer in any core and PSA density. Of 12 patients with maximum cancer length 2 mm. or less and PSA density less than 0.1., 75% had an unimportant cancer compared to 5% of the remaining 158 (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis of systematic biopsy specimens combined with PSA density provides valuable staging information and helps to identify cancers of low biological potential.
PURPOSE: We assessed the ability of diagnostic tests to distinguish clinically unimportant cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We correlated T stage (based on digital examination and ultrasound), prostate specific antigen (PSA), PSA density and pathological features of cancer in systematic biopsy specimens with features of cancer in 170 radical prostatectomy specimens. Clinically unimportant cancers were defined as small (0.5 cm.3 or less), well or moderately differentiated and confined to the prostate. RESULTS: Of the patients 10% had an unimportant cancer. On logistic regression analysis the 2 significant predictors were maximum length of cancer in any core and PSA density. Of 12 patients with maximum cancer length 2 mm. or less and PSA density less than 0.1., 75% had an unimportant cancer compared to 5% of the remaining 158 (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative analysis of systematic biopsy specimens combined with PSA density provides valuable staging information and helps to identify cancers of low biological potential.
Authors: Maisa M Q Quintal; Luciana R Meirelles; Leandro L L Freitas; Luis A Magna; Ubirajara Ferreira; Athanase Billis Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Axel Krieger; Sang-Eun Song; Nathan B Cho; Iulian Iordachita; Peter Guion; Gabor Fichtinger; Louis L Whitcomb Journal: IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 5.303
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Barış Türkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Lambros Stamatakis; Hong Truong; Jeffrey W Nix; Srinivas Vourganti; Kinzya B Grant; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: M Graefen; S Ahyai; R Heuer; G Salomon; T Schlomm; H Isbarn; L Budäus; H Heinzer; H Huland Journal: Urologe A Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 0.639