Abstract
Aims
To compare sextant and 12 core transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies for detecting prostate cancer (PCa) and to determine whether 12-core prostate biopsies are associated with a higher incidence of insignificant prostate cancer and complications.
Methods
A retrospective study was performed on all patients with a positive TRUS biopsy for prostate cancer between January 2011 and December 2013. Group A underwent a sextant core prostate biopsy and group B underwent a 12-core prostate biopsy. Outcome variables were cancer detection rates, oncological outcomes, incidence of clinically insignificant PCa and incidence of biopsy associated complications. Exclusion criteria included a negative TRUS biopsy and metastatic prostate cancer.
Result
In total 718 prostate biopsies were performed and 286 patients met inclusion criteria (143 patients in each group). The overall cancer detection rate was 43 % in group A compared to 53 % in group B (p = 0.03). In group A, 31 (21.7 %) patients proceeded to open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) compared to 36 (25.2 %) in group B (p = 0.7). Sextant biopsies were associated with a significantly higher rate of upgrading compared to 12-core biopsies in RRP specimens (51.6 versus 25 % respectively, p < 0.01). The incidence of clinically insignificant PCa was 10.5 % in group A versus 14.7 % in group B (p = 0.2). The incidence of urosepsis post biopsy was 0.7 % in both groups (n = 1).
Conclusion
Twelve-core biopsies were associated with higher PCa cancer detection rates, greater accuracy for Gleason grading and no differences for detecting clinically insignificant PCa or urosepsis compared to sextant biopsies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ferlay J, Autier P, Boniol M et al (2007) Estimates of the cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2006. Ann Oncol 18:581–592
Crawford ED, Hirano D, Werahera PN et al (1998) Computer modeling of prostate biopsy: tumor size and location–not clinical significance–determine cancer detection. J Urol 159:1260
http://www.cancer.ie/cancer-information/prostate-cancer/symptoms-and-diagnosis#sthash.lrjO5zGN.dpbs. Accessed January 2015
Durkan GC, Sheikh N, Johnson P et al (2002) Improving prostate cancer detection with an extended-core transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy protocol. BJU Int 89(1):33–39
Ceylan C, Doluoglu OG, Aglamis E et al (2014) Comparison of 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 cores prostate biopsies in the determination of prostate cancer and the importance of prostate volume. Can Urol Assoc J 1–2:E81–E85
Rodrigues LV, Terris MK (1998) Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: a prospective study and review of the literature. J Urol 160(6):2115–2120
Ploussard G, Epstein JI, Montironi R et al (2011) The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 60:291–303
Nakanishi H, Wang X, Ochiai A et al (2007) A nomogram for predicting low-volume/low-grade prostate cancer: a tool in selecting patients for active surveillance. Cancer 110(11):2441–2447
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137
Ignacio F, William CD, Seymour R et al (2003) Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 169:136–140
Elabbady AA, Khedr MM (2006) Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increase both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of gleason score. Eur Urol 49:49–53
Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE et al (2000) A prospective randomised trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol 164:388–392
Kim JW, Lee HY, Hong SJ et al (2004) Can a 12 core prostate biopsy increase the detection rate of prostate cancer versus 6 core? A prospective randomized study in Korea. Yonsei Med J 45(4):671–675
Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ et al (1998) Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol 2(160):2407
Tobiume M, Yamada Y, Nakamura K et al (2008) Retrospective study comparing six- and twelve-core prostate biopsy in detection of prostate cancer. Int Braz J Urol 34(1):9–14
Pinkstaff DM, Igel TC, Petrou SP et al (2005) Systematic transperineal ultrasound-guided template biopsy of the prostate: 3-year experience. Urology 65(4):735–739
Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T et al (2008) A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 11(2):134–138
Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG et al (2012) Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 62(5):902–909
Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 186(4):1281–1285
Conflict of interest
Dr. Davis has nothing to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mohammed, W., Davis, N.F., Elamin, S. et al. Six-core versus twelve-core prostate biopsy: a retrospective study comparing accuracy, oncological outcomes and safety. Ir J Med Sci 185, 219–223 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1275-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-015-1275-8