Advertisement

Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 132–136 | Cite as

Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate gland: value of 12 versus 6 cores

  • M. J. O’Connell
  • C. S. Smith
  • P. E. Fitzpatrick
  • C. O. Keane
  • J. M. Fitzpatrick
  • M. Behan
  • H. F. Fenlon
  • J. G. Murray
Article

Abstract

We investigated the effect on prostate carcinoma detection of 12 versus 6 core biopsies at transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), when all biopsies are taken from the lateral peripheral zone. This was a prospective study of 202 consecutive men, ages 51 to 81 years, referred for TRUS-guided biopsy of the prostate gland. All patients had prostate serum antigen levels higher than 4.0 ng/mL and/or abnormal digital rectal examination. In each case three biopsies were taken from the peripheral zones of the right and left lobes of the prostate. Biopsies were taken at the apex, midway between the apex and the base, and at the base. A second set of biopsies was taken from the same regions and analyzed separately. In total, twelve biopsies were taken. Note was subsequently made of additional carcinoma diagnosis increase in Gleason grade, and new diagnoses of carcinoma in the opposite side of the gland diagnosed on the second set of biopsies alone. Seventy-eight of the 202 men (38.6%) had prostatic carcinoma diagnosed on TRUS-guided biopsy. Of these 78 patients, six were diagnosed with malignancy based on the second set of biopsies alone, a 2.9% increase in the 202 patients, representing an increased yield of 8.3% (95% confidence interval, 5.3–28.6%). In nine cases (12.5%; 95% confidence interval, 6.2–22.9%), the Gleason tumor grade was increased on the second set of sextant biopsies; in an additional nine cases, carcinoma was detected in the opposite side of the gland. There were two complications (1%). A 12- versus six-core biopsy strategy for TRUS-guided biopsy of the prostate gland improves detection and histologic grading of prostate carcinoma. The added benefit of additional biopsies was lower in this series than in some prior studies using extensive biopsy protocols.

Keywords

Prostate Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge grant assistance from the Faculty of Radiologists, of the Royal College of Surgeons, in Ireland.

References

  1. 1.
    Thornbury, JR, Ornstein, DK, Choyke, PL,  et al. 2001 Prostate cancer. What is the future role of imaging?AJR1761722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kuligowska, E, Barish, MA, Fenlon, HM, Blake, M 2001Predictors of prostate carcinoma: Accuracy of gray-scale and color Doppler us and serum markers.Radiology220757764PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dyke, CH, Toi, A, Sweet, JM 1990Value of random US-guided transrectal prostate biopsy.Radiology176345349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hodge, KK, McNeal, JE, Terris, MK, Stamey, TA 1989Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate.J Urol1427175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol 1989;142:66–70Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borboroglu, PG, Comer, SW, Riffenburgh, RH,  et al. 2000Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies.J Urol163158162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dowd, GJ, Miller, MC, Orozco, R, Veltri, RW 2000Analysis of repeated biopsy results within 1 year after a non-cancer diagnosis.Urology55553559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Terris, MK, Wallen, EM, Stamey, TA 1997Comparison of mid-lobe versus lateral systematic sextant biopsies in detection of prostate cancer.Urol Int59239242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eskew, LA, Bare, RL, McCullough, DL 1997Systematic 5 region biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate.J Urol157199203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levine, MA, Ittman, M, Melamed, J, Lepor, H 1998Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer.J Urol159471476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ravery, V, Goldblatt, L, Royer, B,  et al. 2000Extensive biopsy protocol improves the detection rate of prostate cancer.J Urol164393396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, F, Littrup, PJ, Loft-Christensen, L,  et al. 1992Predicted prostate specific antigen results using transrectal ultrasound gland volume: differentiation of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer.Cancer70211220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Byar, DP, Mostofi, FK 1972Carcinoma of the prostate : prognostic evaluation of certain pathological features in 208 radical prostatectomies.Cancer30513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stamey, TA 1995Making the most of six systematic sextant biopsiesUrology45212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epstein, JI, Walsh, PC, Carter, HB 2001Importance of posterolateral needle biopsies in the detection of prostate cancerUrology5711121116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naughton, CK, Miller, DC, Mager, DE,  et al. 2000A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detectionJ Urol164388392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arger, PH, Malkowicz, SB, Van Arsdalen, KN,  et al. 2002Impact of the added biopsy areas on prostate cancer detection.J Ultrasound Med21135139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen, ME, Troncoso, P, Johnston, D, Tang, K, Babaian, RJ 1999Prostate cancer detection: relationship to prostate size.Urology53764768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gleason, DF, Mellinger, GT 1974Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histologic grading and clinical stage.J Urol1115864PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Catalona, WJ, Smith, DS 1994Five year tumor recurrence rates after anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer.J Urol15218371842PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gerber, GS, Thisted, RA, Scardino, PT,  et al. 1996Results of radical prostatectomy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.JAMA276615619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodriguez, LV, Terris, MK 1998Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: a prospective study and review of the literature.J Urol1602115212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Naughton, CK, Ornstein, DK, Smith, DS, Catalona, WJ 2000Pain and morbidity of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomised trial of 6 versus 12 cores.J Urol163168171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. J. O’Connell
    • 1
  • C. S. Smith
    • 1
  • P. E. Fitzpatrick
    • 2
  • C. O. Keane
    • 3
  • J. M. Fitzpatrick
    • 4
  • M. Behan
    • 1
  • H. F. Fenlon
    • 1
  • J. G. Murray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMater Misericordiae Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin 7Ireland
  2. 2.Department of Public Health Medicine and EpidemiologyUniversity College Dublin, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2Ireland
  3. 3.Department of PathologyMater Misericordiae Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin 7Ireland
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryMater Misericordiae Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin 7Ireland

Personalised recommendations