Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer using TRUS-guided biopsy in patients with negative initial biopsy results

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to determine the predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer in the setting of repeat prostate biopsy using trans-rectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy.

Methods

A total of 636 patients who underwent repeat prostate biopsy were included. The patients were divided into two groups according to the repeat biopsy results (with vs. without prostate cancer). A multivariable analysis was performed to assess the predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer.

Results

Prostate cancer was detected in 98 patients (15.4%). Although there was no difference in the prostate-specific antigen velocity, the prostate-specific antigen density was higher in the patients with prostate cancer at the initial (0.14 vs. 0.17 ng/mL/cc, p = 0.049) and repeat biopsies (0.17 vs. 0.26 ng/mL/cc, p < 0.001). The proportions of the patients who met the active surveillance criteria were as follows: 22.4% (Johns Hopkins), 30.6% (University of Toronto), 32.7% (University of California at San Francisco), 30.6% (Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance), 27.6% (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center), and 13.3% (University of Miami). In the multivariable analysis, age, hypoechoic lesion on trans-rectal ultrasonography, and prostate-specific antigen density at the repeat biopsy were the significant predictors for prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer.

Conclusions

Trans-rectal ultrasonography before repeat prostate biopsy and the prostate-specific antigen density are useful for selecting patients with a high probability for prostate cancer if repeat trans-rectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy is considered. In addition, these are also helpful for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TLJ, Ciatto S, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Lilja H, Zappa M, Denis LJ, Recker F, Berenguer A, Määttänen L, Bangma CH, Aus G, Villers A, Rebillard X, van der Kwast T, Blijenberg BG, Moss SM, de Koning HJ, Auvinen A (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized european study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–1328. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, Dodds KM, Coplen DE, Yuan JJJ, Petros JA, Andriole GL (1991) Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 324(17):1156–1161. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199104253241702

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, Marchand C, Terry S, Allory Y, Vacherot F, Abbou CC, Salomon L, Taille A (2013) Risk of repeat biopsy and prostate cancer detection after an initial extended negative biopsy: longitudinal follow-up from a prospective trial. BJU Int 111(6):988–996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, Bouwense SA, Huisman H, Yakar D, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183(2):520–528

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheikh AB, Girouin N, Colombel M, Maréchal J-M, Gelet A, Bissery A, Rabilloud M, Lyonnet D, Rouvière O (2009) Evaluation of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in localizing prostate cancer before repeat biopsy. Eur Radiol 19(3):770–778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC (2014) Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 66(1):22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Altok M, Ward J, Chapin B, Pisters L, Pettaway C, Davis J (2017) PD43-09 cost analysis of different prostate biopsy modalities. J Urol 197(4):e821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L, Jain S, Yamamoto T, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2014) Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 33(3):272–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, Bjartell A, Van Der Schoot DK, Cornel EB, Conti GN (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63(4):597–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, Taneja SS, Thoeny H, Villeirs G, Villers A (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6):1045–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Loeb S, Sanda MG, Broyles DL, Shin SS, Bangma CH, Wei JT, Partin AW, Klee GG, Slawin KM, Marks LS (2015) The prostate health index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 193(4):1163–1169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Committee G (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tosoian JJ, Trock BJ, Landis P, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Partin AW, Walsh PC, Carter HB (2011) Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 29(16):2185–2190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A (2009) Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(1):126–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Stauf F, Cooperberg MR, Meng MV, Kane CJ, Perez N, Master VA (2008) Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 112(12):2664–2670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, Van Der Poel HG, Vis-Maters JJ, Rietbergen JB, Pickles T, Cornel EB, Valdagni R, Jaspars JJ, Van Der Hoeven J (2010) Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre ‘prostate cancer research international: active surveillance’ study. BJU Int 105(7):956–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD (2008) Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J Urol 180(5):1964–1968

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, Ayyathurai R, Kava B, Manoharan M (2008) Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 101(2):165–169

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, Nix J, Volkin D, Hoang A, Turkbey B, Gupta GN, Kruecker J, Linehan WM (2012) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 188(6):2152–2157

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Reiter RE, Marks LS (2014) Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance–ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 65(4):809–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Verma S, Rosenkrantz AB, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, Haider MA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS, Pinto P (2017) Commentary regarding a recent collaborative consensus statement addressing prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative prostate biopsy. Abdom Radiol 42(2):346–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, Laniado M, Baretton G, Froehner M, Koch R, Wirth M, Zastrow S (2015) Comparison of systematic transrectal biopsy to transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int 116(6):873–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, Ryniker L, Turkbey B, Kavoussi LR, Villani R, Rastinehad AR (2015) In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int 115(4):562–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Jeong IG, Dajani D, Verghese M, Hwang J, Cho YM, Hong JH, Kim C-S, Ahn H, Ro JY (2016) Differences in the aggressiveness of prostate cancer among Korean, Caucasian, and African American men: a retrospective cohort study of radical prostatectomy. In: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 2016. Elsevier, vol 1, pp 3.e9–3.e14

  26. Takahashi H, Epstein JI, Wakui S, Yamamoto T, Furusato B, Zhang M (2014) Differences in prostate cancer grade, stage, and location in radical prostatectomy specimens from United States and Japan. The Prostate 74(3):321–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, Rais-Bahrami S, Yerram N, Walton-Diaz A, Nix JW, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Pinto PA (2014) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int 114(6b):e43–e49

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Radtke J, Boxler S, Kuru T, Wolf M, Alt C, Popeneciu I, Steinemann S, Huettenbrink C, Bergstraesser-Gasch C, Klein T (2015) Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18(3):288–296

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Benecchi L, Pieri AM, Melissari M, Potenzoni M, Pastizzaro CD (2008) A novel nomogram to predict the probability of prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. J Urol 180(1):146–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Wolters T, Van Leenders GJ, Schröder FH (2008) The value of an additional hypoechoic lesion-directed biopsy core for detecting prostate cancer. BJU Int 101(6):685–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None of the authors have any financial disclosures.

Funding

This research was not supported by any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Sindaebang 2(i)-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 07061, Republic of Korea

    Sangjun Yoo, Juhyun Park, Sung Yong Cho, Min Chul Cho, Hwancheol Son & Hyeon Jeong

  2. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Ja Hyeon Ku, Cheol Kwak & Hyeon Hoe Kim

Authors
  1. Sangjun Yoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juhyun Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sung Yong Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Min Chul Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ja Hyeon Ku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hwancheol Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Cheol Kwak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hyeon Hoe Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hyeon Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Sangjun Yoo: manuscript writing. Juhyun Park: data collection. Sung Yong Park: data analysis. Min Chul Cho: data analysis. Hwancheol Son: data analysis. Hyeon Jeong: protocol/project development.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyeon Jeong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animal performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

IRB was allowed to waive the requirements to obtain informed consents.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoo, S., Park, J., Cho, S.Y. et al. Predictors for the detection of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer using TRUS-guided biopsy in patients with negative initial biopsy results. World J Urol 36, 1047–1053 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2239-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2239-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation