Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Extended and saturation needle biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The diagnosis of prostate cancer hinges on the use of systematic ultrasound-guided transrectal needle biopsy. The choice of technique is important, especially for patients with a history of a negative biopsy. Saturation biopsy can be considered for patients at risk of cancer who are willing to accept the side effects and who understand that clinically insignificant cancers can be detected. For patients with previous negative sextant biopsies, expanding the zones sampled and increasing the number of biopsy cores can help detect significant cancers while they are still confined. However, as extended biopsy becomes more commonly performed for initial diagnosis, there likely will be less need for saturation biopsy protocols.

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 and Recommended Reading

  1. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA: Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989, 142:71–74.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Stampfer MJ: A prospective evaluation of plasma prostate-specific antigen for detection of prostatic cancer. JAMA 1995, 273:289–294.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Punglia RS, D’Amico AV, Catalona WJ, et al.: Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:335–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jain S, Bhojwani AG, Mellon JK: Improving the utility of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: the use of PSA derivatives and novel markers. Postgrad Med J 2002, 78:646–650.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ozen H, Aygun C, Ergen A, et al.: Combined use of prostatespecific antigen derivatives decreases the number of unnecessary biopsies to detect prostate cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 2001, 24:610–613.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Scherr DS, Eastham J, Ohori M, Scardino PT: Prostate biopsy techniques and indications: When, where, and how? Semin Urol Oncol 2002, 20:18–31. This article provides a detailed description of TRUS biopsy technique and addresses the related issues of pathologic interpretation of biopsies and the relationship of biopsy to prognosis.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Garcia-Segura JM, Sanchez-Chapado M, Ibarburen C, et al.: In vivo proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy of diseased prostate: spectroscopic features of malignant versus benign pathology. Magn Reson Imaging 1999, 17:755–765.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Halpern EJ, Frauscher F, Rosenberg M, Gomella LG: Directed biopsy during contrast-enhanced sonography of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002, 178:915–919.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chon CH, Lai FC, McNeal JE, Presti JC Jr: Use of extended systematic sampling in patients with a prior negative prostate needle biopsy. J Urol 2002, 167:2457–2460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Presti JC Jr: Prostate biopsy: How many cores are enough? Urol Oncol 2003, 21:135–140. This recent publication is a concise review of the literature and provides a thoughtful evaluation of several extended biopsy schemes.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Durkan GC, Sheikh N, Johnson P, et al.: Improving prostate cancer detection with an extended-core transrectal ultrasonographyguided prostate biopsy protocol. BJU Int 2002, 89:33–39.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL: Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997, 157:199–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis M, Sofer M, Kim SS, Soloway MS: The procedure of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a survey of patient preparation and biopsy technique. J Urol 2002, 167:566–570.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones JS, Oder M, Zippe CD: Saturation prostate biopsy with periprostatic block can be performed in office. J Urol 2002, 168:2108–2110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rodriguez LV, Terris MK: Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: a prospective study and review of the literature. J Urol 1998, 160:2115–2120.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM: Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 2001, 166:86–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Borboroglu PG, Comer SW, Riffenburgh RH, Amling CL: Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol 2000, 163:158–162.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fleshner N, Klotz L: Role of “saturation biopsy” in the detection of prostate cancer among difficult diagnostic cases. Urology 2002, 60:93–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, et al.: Localized prostate cancer: relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993, 71:933–938.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB: Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994, 271:368–374.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dugan JA, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, et al.: The definition and preoperative prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. JAMA 1996, 275:288–294.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stroumbakis N, Cookson MS, Reuter VE, Fair WR: Clinical significance of repeat sextant biopsies in prostate cancer patients. Urology 1997, 49:113–118.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, et al.: The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 1997, 50:562–566.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Keetch DW, Catalona WJ, Smith DS: Serial prostatic biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate specific antigen values. J Urol 1994, 151:1571–1574.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Stamey TA: Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology 1995, 45:2–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carter HB: Importance of posterolateral needle biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer. Urology 2001, 57:1112–1116.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. King CR, Long JP: Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem? Int J Cancer 2000, 90:326–330.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 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, 169:136–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen ME, Troncoso P, Johnston DA, et al.: Optimization of prostate biopsy strategy using computer based analysis. J Urol 1997, 158:2168–2175.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Presti JC Jr, O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, et al.: Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol 2003, 169:125–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE, et al.: A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol 2000, 164:388–392.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Augustin H, Erbersdobler A, Graefen M, et al.: Differences in biopsy features between prostate cancers located in the transition and peripheral zone. BJU Int 2003, 91:477–481.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sauvageot J, Carter HB: Use of repeat sextant and transition zone biopsies for assessing extent of prostate cancer. J Urol 1997, 158:1886–1890.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu IJ, Macy M, Lai YH, Terris MK: Critical evaluation of the current indications for transition zone biopsies. Urology 2001, 57:1117–1120.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Zeng J, Bauer J, Zhang W, et al.: Prostate biopsy protocols: 3D visualization-based evaluation and clinical correlation. Comput Aided Surg 2001, 6:14–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Stricker HJ, Ruddock LJ, Wan J, Belville WD: Detection of nonpalpable prostate cancer: a mathematical and laboratory model. Br J Urol 1993, 71:43–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Karakiewicz PI, Bazinet M, Aprikian AG, et al.: Outcome of sextant biopsy according to gland volume. Urology 1997, 49:55–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Chen ME, Troncoso P, Johnston D, et al.: Prostate cancer detection: relationship to prostate size. Urology 1999, 53:764–768.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Chen ME, Troncoso P, Tang K, et al.: Comparison of prostate biopsy schemes by computer simulation. Urology 1999, 53:951–960.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Naughton CK, Smith DS, Humphrey PA, et al.: Clinical and pathologic tumor characteristics of prostate cancer as a function of the number of biopsy cores: a retrospective study. Urology 1998, 52:808–813.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lopez-Corona E, Ohori M, Scardino PT, et al.: A nomogram for predicting a positive repeat prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy session. J Urol 2003, 170:1184–1188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, 55905, Rochester, MN, USA

    Michael M. Lieber MD

Authors
  1. Kristin L. Chrouser MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael M. Lieber MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chrouser, K.L., Lieber, M.M. Extended and saturation needle biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 5, 226–230 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-004-0041-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-004-0041-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation