The influence of prostate size on cancer detection.

OBJECTIVES To determine if cancer detection rates vary with prostate size using a sextant core biopsy pattern. METHODS We reviewed 1021 transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided sextant pattern prostate biopsies to determine if cancer detection varied based on prostate size. Prostate size was determined using a computer generated elliptical estimation method. Sextant core biopsies were taken, and the patients divided into groups based on estimated size of the prostate and biopsy outcome. Large prostates were those that were estimated by TRUS as 50 cc or more. Prostates were considered small if they were less than 50 cc. Groups were compared based on size and biopsy outcome. RESULTS Adenocarcinoma was detected in 33% (334 of 1021) of the patients. Large prostates were noted in 34% (346 of 1021), of which 23% (80 of 346) had cancer detected by sextant biopsy. Small prostates were noted in 66% (675 of 1021), of which 38% (254 of 675) had cancer detected. The difference in cancer detection in large and small glands using a sextant pattern was statistically significant (P < 0.01). Patients with positive biopsies had significantly smaller prostate sizes (40 cc +/- 26) when compared with those with negative biopsies (51 cc +/- 33) (P < 0.01). Only 14% (8 of 58) of patients with gland sizes 100 cc or greater had positive sextant biopsies while 49% (118 of 239) with prostates 25 cc or less had cancer detected. Multivariate statistical analysis was used to control for differences in age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, TRUS findings, and digital rectal examination between the large and small prostate groups. The difference in cancer detection persisted (P < 0.05) CONCLUSIONS Currently no evidence exists to support differing cancer rates based on gland size alone. Our cancer detection rate using a sextant pattern was higher in men with prostates less than 50 cc, and patients diagnosed with cancer had significantly smaller prostates than those with a negative sextant biopsy. Our data suggest that significant sampling error may occur in men with large glands, and more biopsies may be needed under these circumstances. The effects of tumor volume, focality, and specimen size in relation to overall gland size may contribute to these findings.

[1]  G. Chodak Questioning the value of screening for prostate cancer in asymptomatic men. , 1993, Urology.

[2]  W. Catalona,et al.  Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  G. Miller,et al.  Morphology of prostate cancer: the effects of multifocality on histological grade, tumor volume and capsule penetration. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[4]  M. Benson,et al.  The use of prostate specific antigen density to enhance the predictive value of intermediate levels of serum prostate specific antigen. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[5]  J. Oesterling,et al.  Influence of patient age on the serum PSA concentration. An important clinical observation. , 1993, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[6]  B. Dalkin,et al.  Prostate specific antigen levels in men older than 50 years without clinical evidence of prostatic carcinoma. , 1993, The Journal of urology.

[7]  D. Chan,et al.  Estimation of prostatic growth using serial prostate-specific antigen measurements in men with and without prostate disease. , 1992, Cancer research.

[8]  L. M. Franks Latent carcinoma of the prostate. , 1954, The Journal of pathology and bacteriology.

[9]  W. Cooner,et al.  Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. , 1990, The Journal of urology.

[10]  G. Murphy,et al.  Prostate antigen: A new potential marker for prostatic cancer , 1981, The Prostate.

[11]  G. Chodak,et al.  Early detection of prostate cancer by routine screening. , 1984, JAMA.

[12]  T. Stamey,et al.  The pathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer detectable with current diagnostic tests. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[13]  M. Terris,et al.  Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[14]  W. Catalona,et al.  The nature of prostate cancer detected through prostate specific antigen based screening. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[15]  J. McNeal The zonal anatomy of the prostate , 1981, The Prostate.

[16]  S. Torp-Pedersen,et al.  Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Transrectal US and Digital Rectal Examination for Screening , 1988, Radiology.

[17]  P. Sieber,et al.  The use of prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in a community based urology practice. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[18]  I M Thompson,et al.  An evaluation of serial digital rectal examinations in screening for prostate cancer. , 1988, The Journal of urology.

[19]  A. Pantuck,et al.  Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[20]  H. Huland,et al.  Systematic sextant biopsies in 651 patients referred for prostate evaluation. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[21]  M. Terris,et al.  Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsies. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[22]  W. Catalona,et al.  Detection of organ-confined prostate cancer is increased through prostate-specific antigen-based screening. , 1993, JAMA.