Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates.

PURPOSE We compared prostate cancer detection rates for the 2 most commonly used transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy probes, end fire and side fire, to determine whether the probe configuration affects detection rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS We evaluated 2,674 patients who underwent initial prostate biopsy between 2000 and 2008 with respect to prostate specific antigen, biopsy technique and pathological findings. Patients were divided into 1,124 in whom biopsies were performed with an end fire probe and 1,550 in whom biopsies were performed with a side fire probe. RESULTS There was a significant difference in the overall cancer detection rate in the end vs side fire arms (45.8% vs 38.5%, p <0.001). In the subsets of patients with prostate specific antigen greater than 4 to 10 ng/ml or less and greater than 10 ng/ml a significant difference persisted (46.4% vs 38.9% and 61.7% vs 49.1%, p <0.004 and <0.015, respectively). There was also a significant difference in detection rates between probes in those who underwent 8 to 19 biopsy cores (p <0.009). Biopsies of greater than 20 cores failed to attain statistical significance (p >0.105). We also found that prostate volume, patient age, prostate specific antigen and hypoechoic findings were independent variables for predicting cancer detection on multivariate analysis (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS The type of probe significantly affects the overall prostate cancer detection rate, particularly in patients with prostate specific antigen greater than 4 ng/ml and/or nonsaturation (8 to 19 cores) prostate biopsy. This may be because the end fire probe allows better mechanical sampling of the lateral and apical regions of the peripheral zone, where cancer is most likely to reside. We set the stage for a randomized, controlled trial to confirm our observations.

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

[2]  M. Toublanc,et al.  Extensive biopsy protocol improves the detection rate of prostate cancer. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[3]  T. Stamey,et al.  Zonal Distribution of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: Correlation with Histologic Pattern and Direction of Spread , 1988, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[4]  D. Johnston,et al.  Optimization of prostate biopsy strategy using computer based analysis. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[5]  E. Messing,et al.  Transrectal sonography in prostate evaluation. , 2006, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[6]  J. Jones,et al.  Rectal sensation test helps avoid pain of apical prostate biopsy. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[7]  G. Haas,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of extended biopsies for the staging of microfocal prostate cancers in autopsy specimen , 2009, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[8]  D L McCullough,et al.  Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[9]  Xavière Panhard,et al.  The 20-core prostate biopsy protocol--a new gold standard? , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[10]  Rudolf Hartung,et al.  Influence of transrectal ultrasound probe on prostate cancer detection in transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsy of prostate. , 2004, Urology.

[11]  Robert W Veltri,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. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[12]  T. Stamey,et al.  Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. , 1995, Urology.

[13]  Daniel O Scharfstein,et al.  Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy. , 2005, Urology.

[14]  D. Chan,et al.  Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

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

[16]  D. Johnston,et al.  Comparison of prostate biopsy schemes by computer simulation. , 1999, Urology.

[17]  Is ultrasound guidance necessary for transrectal prostate biopsy? , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[18]  B. Djavan,et al.  Technical innovations in prostate biopsy , 2006 .

[19]  L. Holmberg,et al.  The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. , 1997, Urology.

[20]  Amit Patel,et al.  Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[21]  D. Johnston,et al.  A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[22]  W. Catalona,et al.  Serial prostatic biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate specific antigen values. , 1994, The Journal of urology.