Detection of prostate cancer: A comparative study of the diagnostic efficacy of sextant transrectal versus sextant transperineal biopsy

Urology

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 617-621

  Vis, André N ^d   Boerma, Michiel O ^b   Ciatto, Stefano ^c   Hoedemaeker, Robert F ^a   Schröder, Fritz H ^b   Van Der Kwast, Theo H ^a  

^a JOSEPHINE NEFKENS INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c CANCER RESEARCH AND PREVENTION INSTITUTE ISPO   (Italy)

^d NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; PERINEUM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; RECTUM; TUMOR VOLUME; ULTRASOUND;

BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; PERINEUM; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECTUM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0033825326     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00681-6     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Hodge K.K., McNeal J.E., Terris M.K., et al. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 142:1989;71-75.
2. Epstein J.I., Walsh P.C., Sauvageot J., et al. Use of repeat sextant and transition zone biopsies for assessing extent of prostate cancer. J Urol. 158:1997;1886-1890.
3. Terris M.K. Sensitivity and specificity of sextant biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer preliminary report . Urology. 54:1999;486-489.
4. Eskew L.A., Bare R.L., McCulloch D.L. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 157:1997;199-203.
5. Norberg M., Egevad L., Holmberg L., et al. The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology. 50:1997;562-566.
6. Hoedemaeker RF, Boeken Kruger AE, and van der Kwast TH: How many biopsies should be taken for proper diagnosis and grading?, in Kurth KH, Mickisch HG, and Schöder FH (Eds): Progress and Controversies in Oncological Urology V (Paciou V): Renal, Bladder and Prostate Cancer, an Update. Carnforth, United Kingdom, Parthenon Publishing Group, 1998, pp 109-130.
7. Stamey T.A. Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology. 45:1995;2-12.
8. Chang J.J., Shinohara K., Bhargava V., et al. Prospective evaluation of lateral biopsies of the peripheral zone for prostatic cancer detection. J Urol. 160:1998;2111-2114.
9. Terris M.K., Wallen E., Stamey T.A. Comparison of mid-lobe versus lateral systematic sextant biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer. Urol Int. 59:1997;239-242.
10. Stamey T.A., McNeal J.E., Freiha F.S., et al. Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutive radical prostatectomies. J Urol. 139:1988;1235-1241.
11. Hoedemaeker RF, Ruijter ETG, Ruizeveld-de Winter JA, et al, for the Biomed II MPC Study Group: Processing radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol Pathol 9: 211-222, 1998.
12. Hoedemaeker R.F., Rietbergen J.B.W., Kranse R., et al. Comparison of pathological characteristics of T1c and non-T1c cancers detected in a population-based screening study, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. World J Urol. 15:1997;339-345.
13. Nava L., Montorsi F., Consonni P., et al. Results of a prospective randomised study comparing 6, 12 and 18 transrectal, ultrasound guided, sextant biopsies in patients with elevated PSA, normal DRE and normal ultrasound (abstract). J Urol. 157:(suppl):1997;59.
14. Salomon L., Colomel M., Patard J.J., et al. Use of three additional mid-lobar biopsies to improve local assessment of prostate cancer in patients with one positive sextant biopsy. Eur Urol. 34:1998;313-317.
15. Kaufman J.J., Rosenthal M., Goodwin W.E. Methods of diagnosis of carcinoma of the prostate a comparison of clinical impression, prostatic smear, needle biopsy, open perineal biopsy and transurethral biopsy . J Urol. 72:1954;450-465.
16. Rifkin M.D., Kurtz A.B., Goldberg B.B. Sonographically guided transperineal prostatic biopsy preliminary experience with a longitudinal linear-array transducer . AJR Am J Roentgenol. 140:1983;745-747.
17. Twiddwell J.J., Mathews R.D., Huisam T.K., et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the prostate after abdominoperineal resection. J Urol. 150:1993;902-904.
18. Filderman P.S., Jacobs S.C. Prostatic ultrasound in the patient without a rectum. Urology. 43:1994;722-724.
19. Fornage B.D., Dinney C.P., Troncoso P. Ultrasound-guided transperineal needle biopsy of the prostate after abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Ultrasound. 23:1995;263-265.
20. Shingal R., Terris M.K. Limitations of transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies. Urology. 54:1999;706-708.
21. Holm H.H., Gammelgaard J. Ultrasonically guided precise needle placement in the prostate and the seminal vesicles. J Urol. 125:1982;385-387.
22. Thompson P.M., Pryor J.P., Williams J.P., et al. The problem of infection after prostatic biopsy, the case for the transperineal approach. Br J Urol. 54:1982;736-740.
23. Webb J.A., Shanmuganathan K., McLean A. Complications of ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy a prospective study . Br J Urol. 72:1993;775-778.
24. Rietbergen J.B.W., Boeken Kruger A.E., Kranse R., et al. Complications of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided systematic sextant biopsies of the prostate evaluation of complication rates and risk factors within a population based screening program . Urology. 49:1997;875-880.