Standard and saturation transrectal prostate biopsy techniques are equally accurate among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates

International Journal of Urology

Volumn 20, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 860-864

  Linder, Brian J ^a   Frank, Igor ^a   Umbreit, Eric C ^a   Shimko, Mark S ^a   Fernández, Nicolás ^a   Rangel, Laureano J ^a   Karnes, R Jeffrey ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Saturation biopsy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL FAILURE FREE SURVIVAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; FOLLOW UP; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; TRANSRECTAL PROSTATE BIOPSY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY;

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; SATURATION BIOPSY;

BIOPSY; HUMANS; MALE; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84883465096     PISSN: 09198172     EISSN: 14422042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/iju.12061     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK etal. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2009; 181: 1635-1641; discussion 1641.
2. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C etal. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J. Urol. 2007; 178: 2359-2364; discussion 2364-5.
3. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE etal. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008; 112: 2664-2670.
4. Klotz L. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer. Urol. Oncol. 2006; 24: 46-50.
5. Patel MI, DeConcini DT, Lopez-Corona E, Ohori M, Wheeler T, Scardino PT. An analysis of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who deferred definitive therapy. J. Urol. 2004; 171: 1520-1524.
6. King AC, Livermore A, Laurila TA, Huang W, Jarrard DF. Impact of immediate TRUS rebiopsy in a patient cohort considering active surveillance for favorable risk prostate cancer. Urol. Oncol. 2011; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.06.011.
7. Blute ML, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ etal. Anatomic site-specific positive margins in organ-confined prostate cancer and its impact on outcome after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1997; 50: 733-739.
8. Amling CL, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, Slezak JM, Zincke H. Defining prostate specific antigen progression after radical prostatectomy: what is the most appropriate cut point? J. Urol. 2001; 165: 1146-1151.
9. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Salomon L etal. The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur. Urol. 2009; 56: 891-898.
10. Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L etal. Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology 2009; 73: 1087-1091.
11. Beauval JB, Ploussard G, Soulie M etal. Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. Urology 2012; 80: 656-660.
12. Abouassaly R, Lane BR, Jones JS. Staging saturation biopsy in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance protocol. Urology 2008; 71: 573-577.
13. Villa L, Capitanio U, Briganti A etal. The number of cores taken is a major predictor of insignificant prostate cancer in patients diagnosed with a single microfocus at initial biopsy: implications for the selection of candidates suitable for active surveillance. J. Urol. 2012; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.100.