Concordance between transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy results and radical prostatectomy final pathology: Are we getting better at predicting final pathology?

Journal of the Canadian Urological Association

Volumn 8, Issue 1-2 FEB, 2014, Pages 47-52

  Walker, Richard ^a   Lindner, Uri ^a   Louis, Alyssa ^a   Kalnin, Robin ^b   Ennis, Marguerite ^c   Nesbitt, Michael ^a   van der Kwast, Theodorus H ^a   Finelli, Antonio ^a   Fleshner, Neil E ^a   Zlotta, Alexandre R ^a   Jewett, Michael A S ^a   Hamilton, Robert ^a   Kulkarni, Girish ^a   Trachtenberg, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^b Meridian Software Development   (Canada)

^c NONE

Author keywords

Prostate cancer; Prostate specific antigen; Prostatectomy; Watchful waiting

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894312368     PISSN: 19116470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.751     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Djavan B, Zlotta AR, Ekane S, et al. Is one set of sextant biopsies enough to rule out prostate cancer? Influence of transition and total prostate volumes on prostate cancer yield. Eur Urol 2000;38:218-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000020282
2. Fleshner NE, Cookson MS, Soloway SM, et al. Repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A strategy to improve the reliability of needle biopsy grading in patients with well-differentiated prostate cancer. Urology 1998;52:659-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00226-X
3. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, et al. Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: Use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology 1998;51:525-9. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00002-8
4. Ooi K, Samali R. Discrepancies in Gleason scoring of prostate biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens and the effects of multiple needle biopsies on scoring accuracy. A regional experience in Tamworth, Australia. ANZ J Surg 2007;77:336-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04054.x
5. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol 2006;176:979-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.102
6. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkovwicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969
7. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/ jama.1994.03510290050036
8. Scherr D, Swindle PW, Scardino PT. National comprehensive cancer network guidelines for the management of prostate cancer. Urology 2003;61:14-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02395-6
9. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;367:203-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1113162
10. Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008;112:2664-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23502
11. Epstein JI. An update of the Gleason grading system. J Urol 2010;183:433-40. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.046
12. Hepalp B, Egevad L. The significance of modified Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Virchows Arch 2006;449:622-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00428-006-0310-6
13. Katz BP. A computer enhanced runs test for smoothed data. Stat Med 1988;7:795-804. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/sim.4780070709
14. Hernandez DJ, Nielsen ME, Han M, et al. Natural history of pathologically organ-confined (pT2), Gleason score 6 or less, prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2008;72:172-6. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.055
15. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: Patient selection and management. Curr Oncol 2010;17:S11-7.
16. Dahabreh IJ, Chung M, Balk EM, et al. Active surveillance in men with localized prostate cancer: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:582-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-8-201204170-00009
17. Emiliozzi P, Maymone S, Paterno A, et al. Increased accuracy of biopsy Gleason score obtained by extended needle biopsy. J Urol 2004;172:2224-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000144456.67352.63
18. San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, et al. Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;169:136-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64053-0
19. McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, et al. Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1990;66:1225-33. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/1097-0142(19900915)66:6<1225::AID-CNCR2820660624>3.0.CO;2-X