Clinical Value of Core Length in Contemporary Multicore Prostate Biopsy

OBJECTIVES There is little data about the clinical value of core length for prostate biopsy (PBx). We investigated the clinical values of various clinicopathological biopsy-related parameters, including core length, in the contemporary multi-core PBx. PATIENTS AND METHODS Medical records of 5,243 consecutive patients who received PBx at our institution were reviewed. Among them, 3,479 patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 10 ng/ml level who received transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided multi (≥ 12)-core PBx at our institution were analyzed for prostate cancer (PCa). Gleason score upgrading (GSU) was analyzed in 339 patients who were diagnosed with low-risk PCa and received radical prostatectomy. Multivariate logistic regression analyses for PCa detection and prediction of GSU were performed. RESULTS The mean age and PSA of the entire cohort were 63.5 years and 5.4 ng/ml, respectively. The overall cancer detection rate was 28.5%. There was no statistical difference in core length between patients diagnosed with PCa and those without PCa (16.1 ± 1.8 vs 16.1 ± 1.9 mm, P = 0.945). The core length was also not significantly different (16.4 ± 1.7 vs 16.4 ± 1.6mm, P = 0.889) between the GSU group and non-GSU group. Multivariate logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the core length of PBx did not affect PCa detection in TRUS-guided multi-core PBx (P = 0.923) and was not prognostic for GSU in patients with low-risk PCa (P = 0.356). CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing contemporary multi-core PBx, core length may not have significant impact on PCa detection and also GSU following radical prostatectomy among low-risk PCa group.

[1]  F. Brimo,et al.  Length of prostate biopsy cores: does it impact cancer detection? , 2013, The Canadian journal of urology.

[2]  Zhihong Zhang,et al.  Is an initial saturation prostate biopsy scheme better than an extended scheme for detection of prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2013, European urology.

[3]  L. Salomon,et al.  Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. , 2012, Urology.

[4]  C. De Nunzio,et al.  Prostate Biopsy Quality Is Independent of Needle Size: A Randomized Single-Center Prospective Study , 2012, Urologia Internationalis.

[5]  C. Öbek,et al.  Core length in prostate biopsy: size matters. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[6]  A. Partin,et al.  Radical prostatectomy outcome in men 65 years old or older with low risk prostate cancer. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[7]  M. Soloway,et al.  Clinically significant Gleason sum upgrade , 2012, Cancer.

[8]  Misop Han,et al.  Predicting 15-year prostate cancer specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[9]  F. Montorsi,et al.  Optimizing performance and interpretation of prostate biopsy: a critical analysis of the literature. , 2010, European urology.

[10]  Ö. Akdemir,et al.  Sixteen gauge needles improve specimen quality but not cancer detection rate in transrectal ultrasound-guided 10-core prostate biopsies , 2008, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[11]  Jean-Jacques Patard,et al.  Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. , 2007, European urology.

[12]  John T. Wei,et al.  Incidence of initial local therapy among men with lower-risk prostate cancer in the United States. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[13]  M. Pea,et al.  Needle core length is a quality indicator of systematic transperineal prostate biopsy. , 2006, European urology.

[14]  Susanne Hempel,et al.  Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[15]  P. Walsh,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. , 2005, The Journal of urology.

[16]  H. Ozen,et al.  Can we obtain better specimens with an end-cutting prostatic biopsy device? , 2005, European urology.

[17]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Handling and pathology reporting of prostate biopsies. , 2004, European urology.

[18]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  Handling and pathology reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2003, European urology.

[19]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Guidelines for processing and reporting of prostatic needle biopsies , 2003, Journal of clinical pathology.

[20]  A. Billis Needle core length in sextant biopsy influences prostate cancer detection rate. , 2002, International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology.

[21]  G. Bartsch,et al.  Diagnostic effect of an improved preembedding method of prostate needle biopsy specimens. , 2000, Human pathology.

[22]  P. Walsh,et al.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. , 1994, JAMA.

[23]  Timothy J Wilt,et al.  Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. , 2008, Reviews in urology.