Urology
Volume 70, Issue 6, Supplement 1 , Pages S27-S35, December 2007

Appropriate Patient Selection in the Focal Treatment of Prostate Cancer: The Role of Transperineal 3-Dimensional Pathologic Mapping of the Prostate—A 4-Year Experience

  • Winston E. Barzell

      Affiliations

    • Urology Treatment Center, Sarasota, Florida, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Winston E. Barzell, MD, 1921 Waldemere, Suite 310, Sarasota, Florida 34239.
    • Dr. Barzell is a consultant for CIVCO Medical Solutions.
  • ,
  • Myron R. Melamed

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA
    • Dr. Melamed has no financial arrangement or affiliation with a corporate organization or a manufacturer of a product discussed in this supplement.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the usefulness of transperineal mapping biopsy of the prostate as a staging procedure in the appropriate selection of patients for treatment with focal cryoablation. Between October 2001 and January 2006, a total of 80 patients underwent extensive template-guided transperineal pathologic mapping of the prostate (3-DPM), in conjunction with repeat transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies. Before 3-DPM was performed, the following clinical variables were recorded: age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), percent free PSA, total prostate volume, transition zone volume, Gleason score, TNM stage, number of positive cores, and maximum percent of positive cores. Results of 3-DPM were compared with those of TRUS-guided biopsies to determine patient suitability for focal cryoablation; this served as the study end point. Of 80 study patients, 43 (54%) were deemed unsuitable for focal cryoablation. When compared with 3-DPM in assessing patient suitability for focal cryoablation repeat TRUS-guided biopsies yielded a false-negative rate of 47%, a sensitivity of 54%, and a negative predictive value of 49%. None of the pre–3-DPM variables correlated significantly with patient suitability for focal ablation. Treatment selected by the 80 study patients included total gland cryoablation (30%), expectant management (23%), radical prostatectomy (18%), focal cryoablation (11%), external irradiation (10%), brachytherapy (6%), and combined external irradiation and brachytherapy (1%); 1% were undecided about treatment selection. In this study, we demonstrated that 3-DPM (1) effectively excluded patients with clinically significant unsuspected cancer outside the area destined to be ablated, (2) appeared to do so more effectively than repeat TRUS-guided biopsies, and (3) was able to precisely locate the site of the cancer to be selectively ablated.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0090-4295(07)01792-X

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.06.1126

Urology
Volume 70, Issue 6, Supplement 1 , Pages S27-S35, December 2007