Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Future Directions in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

  • Chapter
Book cover Prostate Biopsy

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

  • 884 Accesses

Abstract

In our aging society, the incidence of prostate cancer will continue to increase, and improvements in detection and treatment of this prevalent yet extremely treatable and curable disease are needed. Research into new molecular markers described in this chapter is especially promising. These markers will improve specificity and sensitivity of screening and will serve to supplement or supplant current prostate-specific antigen screening. Targeted biopsy utilizing new radiographic techniques such as Doppler ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and magnetic resonance spectroscopy can reduce the number of needle cores and improve pathologic specimen quality. Improvements in anesthetic agents and techniques decrease discomfort and improve patient readiness to undergo prostate biopsy. As emerging research continues to elucidate the pathology of prostate cancer, diagnostic screening expands into genetic and even viral etiologies that may offer the possibility of a vaccine against prostate cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, et al. The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer [see comment]. N Engl J Med 2003;349:215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤4.0 ng per milliliter [see comment] [erratum appears in N Engl J Med 2004;351(14):1470]. N Engl J Med 2004;350 2239.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fradet Y, Saad F, Aprikian A, et al. uPM3, a new molecular urine test for the detection of prostate cancer. Urology 2004;64:311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bussemakers MJ, van Bokhoven A, Verhaegh GW, et al. DD3: a new prostate-specific gene, highly overexpressed in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 1999;59:5975.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. de Kok JB, Verhaegh GW, Roelofs RW, et al. DD3(PCA3), a very sensitive and specific marker to detect prostate tumors [see comment]. Cancer Res 2002;62:2695.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hessels D, Klein Gunnewiek JM, van Oort I, et al. DD3(PCA3)-based molecular urine analysis for the diagnosis of prostate cancer [see comment]. Eur Urol 2003;44:8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tinzl M, Marberger M, Horvath S, et al. DD3PCA3 RNA analysis in urine—a new perspective for detecting prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2004;46:182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Petricoin EF, Ardekani AM, Hitt BA, et al. Use of proteomic patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer [see comment]. Lancet 2002;359:572.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Adam BL, Qu Y, Davis JW, et al. Serum protein fingerprinting coupled with a pattern-matching algorithm distinguishes prostate cancer from benign prostate hyperplasia and healthy men [see comment]. Cancer Res 2002;62:3609.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Li J, Zhang Z, Rosenzweig J, et al. Proteomics and bioinformatics approaches for identification of serum biomarkers to detect breast cancer. Clin Chem 2002;48:1296.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Petricoin EF 3rd, Ornstein DK, Paweletz CP, et al. Serum proteomic patterns for detection of prostate cancer [see comment]. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1576.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Banez LL, Prasanna P, Sun L, et al. Diagnostic potential of serum proteomic patterns in prostate cancer [see comment]. J Urol 2003;170:442.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Li J, White N, Zhang Z, et al. Detection of prostate cancer using serum proteomics pattern in a histologically confirmed population [erratum appears in J Urol 2004;172(1):389]. J Urol 2004;171:1782.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Baggerly KA, Morris JS, Coombes KR. Reproducibility of SELDI-TOF protein patterns in serum: comparing datasets from different experiments. Bioinformatics 2004;20:777.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sorace JM, Zhan M. A data review and re-assessment of ovarian cancer serum proteomic profiling. BMC Bioinformatics 2003;4:24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Diamandis E. Mass spectrometry as a diagnostic and a cancer biomarker discovery tool: opportunities and potential limitations. Mol Cell Proteomics 2004;3:367.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Grizzle WE, Adam BL, Bigbee WL, et al. Serum protein expression profiling for cancer detection: validation of a SELDI-based approach for prostate cancer. Dis Markers 2003;19:185.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Semmes OJ, Feng Z, Adam BL, et al. Evaluation of serum protein profiling by surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry for the detection of prostate cancer: I. Assessment of platform reproducibility [see comment]. Clin Chem 2005;51:102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ornstein DK, Rayford W, Fusaro VA, et al. Serum proteomic profiling can discriminate prostate cancer from benign prostates in men with total prostate specific antigen levels between 2.5 and 15.0ng/ml. J Urol 2004;172:1302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Malik G, Ward MD, Gupta SK, et al. Serum levels of an isoform of apolipo-protein A-II as a potential marker for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:1073.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Le L, Chi K, Tyldesley S, et al. Identification of serum amyloid A as a biomarker to distinguish prostate cancer patients with bone lesions. Clin Chem 2005;51:695.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rubin MA, Zhou M, Dhanasekaran SM, et al. Alpha-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase as a tissue biomarker for prostate cancer [see comment]. JAMA 2002;287:1662.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Luo J, Zha S, Gage WR, et al. Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase: a new molecular marker for prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2002;62:2220.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rogers CG, Yan G, Zha S, et al. Prostate cancer detection on urinalysis for alpha methylacyl coenzyme, a racemase protein. J Urol 2004;172:1501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zielie PJ, Mobley JA, Ebb RG, et al. A novel diagnostic test for prostate cancer emerges from the determination of alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme, a racemase in prostatic secretions. J Urol 2004;172:1130.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sreekumar A, Laxman B, Rhodes DR, et al. Humoral immune response to alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase and prostate cancer [see comment] [erratum appears in J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(14):1112]. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:834.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bradley SV, Oravecz-Wilson KI, Bougeard G, et al. Serum antibodies to huntingtin interacting protein-1: a new blood test for prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2005;65:4126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang X, Yu J, Sreekumar A, et al. Autoantibody signatures in prostate cancer [see comment]. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1224.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Petrovics G, Liu A, Shaheduzzaman S, et al. Frequent overexpression of ETS-related gene-1 (ERG1) in prostate cancer transcriptome. Oncogene 2005;24:3847.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Oikawa T, Yamada T. Molecular biology of the Ets family of transcription factors. Gene 2003;303:11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer [see comment]. Science 2005;310:644.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol 1989;142:66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Partin AW, Stutzman RE. Elevated prostate-specific antigen, abnormal prostate evaluation on digital rectal examination, and transrectal ultrasound and prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am 1998;25:581.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Presti JC Jr. Prostate biopsy: how many cores are enough? Urol Oncol 2003;21:135.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Eskicorapci SY, Guliyev F, Akdogan B, et al. Individualization of the biopsy protocol according to the prostate gland volume for prostate cancer detection [see comment]. J Urol 2005;173:1536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Xu HX, Yin XY, Lu MD, et al. Estimation of liver tumor volume using a three-dimensional ultrasound volumetric system. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003;29:839.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen DR, Chang RF, Chen CJ, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in margin evaluation for breast tumor excision using Mammotome. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004;30:169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Belohlavek M, Foley DA, Gerber TC, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the atrial septum: normal and pathologic anatomy. J Am College Cardiol 1993;22:1673.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Elliot TL, Downey DB, Tong S, et al. Accuracy of prostate volume measurements in vitro using three-dimensional ultrasound. Acad Radiol 1996;3:401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sedelaar JP, van Roermund JG, van Leenders GL, et al. Three-dimensional grayscale ultrasound: evaluation of prostate cancer compared with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2001;57:914.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kelly IM, Lees WR, Rickards D. Prostate cancer and the role of color Doppler US. Radiology 1993;189:153.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. el-Gabry EA, Halpern EJ, Strup SE, et al. Imaging prostate cancer: current and future applications. Oncology (Huntington) 2001;15:325.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Louvar E, Littrup PJ, Goldstein A, et al. Correlation of color Doppler flow in the prostate with tissue microvascularity. Cancer 1998;83:135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rubin JM, Bude RO, Carson PL, et al. Power Doppler US: a potentially useful alternative to mean frequency-based color Doppler US. Radiology 1994; 190:853.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kimura G, Nishimura T, Kimata R, et al. Random systematic sextant biopsy versus power doppler ultrasound-guided target biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: positive rate and clinicopathological features. J Nippon Med School 2005;72:262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Burns PN. Ultrasound contrast agents in radiological diagnosis. Radiol Med 1994;87:71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Wijkstra H, Wink MH, de la Rosette JJ. Contrast specific imaging in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. World J Urol 2004;22:346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bogers HA, Sedelaar JP, Beerlage HP, et al. Contrast-enhanced three-dimensional power Doppler angiography of the human prostate: correlation with biopsy outcome. Urology 1999;54:97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Karaman CZ, Unsal A, Akdilli A, et al. The value of contrast enhanced power Doppler ultrasonography in differentiating hypoechoic lesions in the peripheral zone of prostate. Eur J Radiol 2005;54:148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pelzer A, Bektic J, Berger AP, et al. Prostate cancer detection in men with prostate specific antigen 4 to 10 ng/ml using a combined approach of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted and systematic biopsy. J Urol 2005;173:1926.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Roscigno M, Scattoni V, Bertini R, et al. Diagnosis of prostate cancer. State of the art. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2004;56:123.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Halpern EJ, Ramey JR, Strup SE, et al. Detection of prostate carcinoma with contrast-enhanced sonography using intermittent harmonic imaging. Cancer 2005;104:2373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hricak H, Williams RD, Spring DB, et al. Anatomy and pathology of the male pelvis by magnetic resonance imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983;141:1101.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sommer FG, Nghiem HV, Herfkens R, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the abnormal prostate. Magn Reson Imaging 1993;11:941.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Schiebler ML, Tomaszewski JE, Bezzi M, et al. Prostatic carcinoma and benign prostatic hyperplasia: correlation of high-resolution MR and histopathologic findings. Radiology 1989;172:131.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Mullerad M, Hricak H, Kuroiwa K, et al. Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. J Urol 2005;174:2158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, et al. Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24–0.7-cm3) spatial resolution. Radiology 1996;198:795.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Casciani E, Polettini E, Bertini L, et al. Prostate cancer: evaluation with endorectal MR imaging and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiol Med 2004;108:530.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Prando A, Kurhanewicz J, Borges AP, et al. Prostatic biopsy directed with endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging findings in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen levels and prior negative biopsy findings: early experience. Radiology 2005;236:903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Wefer AE, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al. Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology [see comment]. J Urol 2000;164:400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Vashi AR, Wojno KJ, Gillespie B, et al. A model for the number of cores per prostate biopsy based on patient age and prostate gland volume. J Urol 1998;159:920.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate [see comment]. J Urol 1997;157:199.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C, et al. An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2004;45:444.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, et al. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial [see comment]. J Urol 2000;163:163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Uzzo RG, Wei JT, Waldbaum RS, et al. The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. Urology 1995;46:831.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Karakiewicz PI, Bazinet M, Aprikian AG, et al. Outcome of sextant biopsy according to gland volume. Urology 1997;49:55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Autorino R, De Sio M, Di Lorenzo G, et al. How to decrease pain during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a look at the literature. J Urol 2005;174:2091.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Nash PA, Bruce JE, Indudhara R, et al. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic nerve blockade eases systematic needle biopsy of the prostate. J Urol 1996;155:607.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Davis M, Sofer M, Kim SS, et al. The procedure of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a survey of patient preparation and biopsy technique. J Urol 2002;167:566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Hollabaugh RSJ, Dmochowski RR, Steiner MS. Neuroanatomy of the male rhabdosphincter. Urology 1997;49:426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Rodriguez A, Kyriakou G, Leray E, et al. Prospective study comparing two methods of anaesthesia for prostate biopsies: apex periprostatic nerve block versus intrarectal lidocaine gel: review of the literature. Eur Urol 2003;44:195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Alavi AS, Soloway MS, Vaidya A, et al. Local anesthesia for ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial comparing 2 methods. J Urol 2001;166:1343.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Wu CL, Carter HB, Naqibuddin M, et al. Effect of local anesthetics on patient recovery after transrectal biopsy. Urology 2001;57:925.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Mutaguchi K, Shinohara K, Matsubara A, et al. Local anesthesia during 10 core biopsy of the prostate: comparison of 2 methods. J Urol 2005;173:742.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Desgrandchamps F, Meria P, Irani J, et al. The rectal administration of lidocaine gel and tolerance of transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy of the prostate: a prospective randomized placebo-controlled study. BJU Int 1999; 83:1007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Issa MM, Bux S, Chun T, et al. A randomized prospective trial of intrarectal lidocaine for pain control during transrectal prostate biopsy: the Emory University experience. J Urol 2000;164:397.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Stirling BN, Shockley KF, Carothers GG, et al. Comparison of local anesthesia techniques during transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies. Urology 2002;60:89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Lynn NN, Collins GN, Brown SC, et al. Periprostatic nerve block gives better analgesia for prostatic biopsy. BJU Int 2002;90:424.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Adamakis I, Mitropoulos D, Haritopoulos K, et al. Pain during transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy: a randomized prospective trial comparing periprostatic infiltration with lidocaine with the intrarectal instillation of lidocaine-prilocain cream. World J Urol 2004;22:281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Obek C, Ozkan B, Tunc B, et al. Comparison of 3 different methods of anesthesia before transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 2004;172:502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Fink KG, Gnad A, Meissner P, et al. Lidocaine suppositories for prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2005;96:1028.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Haq A, Patel HR, Habib MR, et al. Diclofenac suppository analgesia for transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies of the prostate: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. J Urol 2004;171:1489.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Kravchick S, Peled R, Ben-Dor D, et al. Comparison of different local anesthesia techniques during TRUS-guided biopsies: a prospective pilot study. Urology 2005;65:109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Masood J, Shah N, Lane T, et al. Nitrous oxide (Entonox) inhalation and tolerance of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a double-blind randomized controlled study. J Urol 2002;168:116.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. McIntyre IG, Dixon A, Pantelides ML. Entonox analgesia for prostatic biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2003;6:235.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Dogan HS, Eskicorapci SY, Ertoy-Baydar D, et al. Can we obtain better specimens with an end-cutting prostatic biopsy device? Eur Urol 2005;47:297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Ozden E, Gogus C, Tulunay O, et al. The long core needle with an end-cut technique for prostate biopsy: does it really have advantages when compared with standard needles? Eur Urol 2004;45:287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Haggarth L, Ekman P, Egevad L. A new core-biopsy instrument with an end-cut technique provides prostate biopsies with increased tissue yield. BJU Int 2002;90:51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Jhavar S, Corbishley CM, Dearnaley D, et al. Construction of tissue microarrays from prostate needle biopsy specimens. Br J Cancer 2005;93:478.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Klein E, Urisman A, Molinaro R, et al. Identification of a novel retrovirus in prostate tumors of patients homozygous for the R462q mutation in the Hpc1 gene. Presented at ASCO Prostate Cancer Symposium, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Kaplan I, Oldenburg NE, Meskell P, et al. Real time MRI-ultrasound image guided stereotactic prostate biopsy. Magn Reson Imaging 2002;20:295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Zhu Y, Williams S, Zwiggelaar R. Computer technology in detection and staging of prostate carcinoma: a review. Med Image Anal 2006;10:178–199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urologie Surgery and Duke Prostate Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC

    Nicholas J. Fitzsimons MD, Leon L. Sun MD & Judd W. Moul MD

  2. Center for Prostate Disease Research, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Rockville, MD

    Lionel L. Bañez MD

Authors
  1. Nicholas J. Fitzsimons MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lionel L. Bañez MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leon L. Sun MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Judd W. Moul MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Regional Urology, Cleveland Clinic Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, USA

    J. Stephen Jones MD (Chairman, Associate Professor of Surgery (Urology) (Chairman, Associate Professor of Surgery (Urology)

  2. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at CWRU, Cleveland, OH, USA

    J. Stephen Jones MD (Chairman, Associate Professor of Surgery (Urology) (Chairman, Associate Professor of Surgery (Urology)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fitzsimons, N.J., Bañez, L.L., Sun, L.L., Moul, J.W. (2008). Future Directions in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. In: Jones, J.S. (eds) Prostate Biopsy. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-078-6_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-078-6_20

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-790-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60327-078-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation