» Articles » PMID: 16040085

Utility of Saturation Biopsy to Predict Insignificant Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy

Overview
Journal Urology
Specialty Urology
Date 2005 Jul 26
PMID 16040085
Citations 38
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether potential candidates for watchful waiting have undersampling of more substantial cancer.

Methods: A total of 103 men were studied, who were predicted to have insignificant cancer in their radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen. All had limited cancer on routine needle biopsy (no core with more than 50% involvement; Gleason score less than 7, and fewer than 3 cores involved) with a serum prostate-specific antigen density of 0.15 or less. Insignificant tumor at RP was considered organ-confined tumor, no Gleason pattern 4 or 5, and a tumor volume of less than 0.5 cm3. Saturation biopsy (average 44 cores) and an alternate biopsy saturation scheme with one half the number of cores using an 18-gauge Biopty gun was performed in the pathology laboratory on totally embedded and serially sectioned RP specimens.

Results: Of the tumors, 97% were organ confined. The RP Gleason score was less than 7 in 84% of the cases. The RP tumor volume was 0.01 to 2.39 cm3 (median 0.14). Of the cancer specimens, 71% were insignificant and 29% had been incorrectly classified before surgery using standard biopsy schemes. Using the full saturation biopsy scheme, if we predicted significant cancer, the probability of having insignificant cancer was only 11.5% (false-positive rate). If the model predicted insignificant cancer, the probability of significant cancer was also only 11.5% (false-negative rate; sensitivity 71.9% and specificity 95.8%). Using the alternate biopsy sampling scheme, the false-positive rate was 8% and the false-negative rate was 11.4% (sensitivity 71.9% and specificity 97.1%).

Conclusions: Saturation biopsy provides accurate predictability of prostate tumor volume and grade to select suitable candidates for watchful waiting therapy.

Citing Articles

Prostate-specific Antigen Density as a Proxy for Predicting Prostate Cancer Severity: Is There Any Difference between Systematic and Targeted Biopsy?.

Arafa M, Farhat K, Rabah D, Khan F, Mokhtar A, Al-Taweel W Saudi J Med Med Sci. 2023; 11(4):299-304.

PMID: 37970462 PMC: 10634460. DOI: 10.4103/sjmms.sjmms_49_23.


Design of an Ultrasound-Navigated Prostate Cancer Biopsy System for Nationwide Implementation in Senegal.

Fichtinger G, Mousavi P, Ungi T, Fenster A, Abolmaesumi P, Kronreif G J Imaging. 2021; 7(8).

PMID: 34460790 PMC: 8404908. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging7080154.


What is the consistency between the results of needle biopsy and prostatectomy specimen pathology results? A pilot study.

Yildizli O, Untan I, Demirci D Turk J Med Sci. 2021; 51(3):1360-1364.

PMID: 33535735 PMC: 8283461. DOI: 10.3906/sag-2009-73.


Quantifying the effect of biopsy lateral decubitus patient positioning compared to supine prostate magnetic resonance image scanning on prostate translocation and distortion.

Snoj Z, Rundo L, Gill A, Barrett T Can Urol Assoc J. 2020; 14(9):E445-E452.

PMID: 32223873 PMC: 7492036. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6298.


Association between serum levels of insulin-like growth factor-1, bioavailable testosterone, and pathologic Gleason score.

Kim M, Kim J, Kim J, Lee S, Song C, Jeong I Cancer Med. 2018; 7(8):4170-4180.

PMID: 29992746 PMC: 6089192. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1681.