Urology
Volume 77, Issue 3 , Pages 541-547 , March 2011

Comparison of 12-Core Versus 8-Core Prostate Biopsy: Multivariate Analysis of Large Series of US Veterans

  • Thura T. Abd

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia
    • Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
    • ,
  • Michael Goodman

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
    • ,
  • John Hall

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia
    • ,
  • Chad W.M. Ritenour

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia
    • Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
    • ,
  • John A. Petros

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia
    • Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
    • Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
    • ,
  • Fray F. Marshall

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia
    • Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
    • ,
  • Muta M. Issa

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Atlanta, Georgia
    • Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Muta M. Issa, M.D., M.B.A., Department of Urology, AVAMC (112), 1670 Clairmont Road, NE, Decatur, GA 30033

Received 25 January 2010 ,Accepted 6 June 2010.

References 

  1. American Cancer Society. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/lrn/lrn_0.aspAccessed January 2010
  2. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, et al. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:71–74
  3. Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K, et al. A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol. 2000;163:152–157
  4. O'Connell MJ, Smith CS, Fitzpatrick PE, et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate gland: value of 12 versus 6 cores. Abdom Imaging. 2004;29:132–136
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Matlaga BR, Eskew LA, McCullough DL. Prostate biopsy: indications and technique. J Urol. 2003;169:12–19
  8. Stamey TA. Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology. 1996;45:2–12
  9. De la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, et al. Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology. 2003;61:1181–1186
  10. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Urology. 2006;175:1605–1612
  11. de la Rosette MCH, Jean J, Wink MH, et al. Optimizing prostate cancer detection: 8 versus 12-Core Biopsy Protocol. J Urol. 2009;182:1329–1336
  12. Presti JC, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, et al. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 2000;163:163–166
  13. Bertaccini A, Fandella A, Prayer-Galetti T, et al. Italian Group for Developing Clinical Practice Guidelines on performing prostate B: systematic development of clinical practice guidelines for prostate biopsies: a 3-year Italian project. Anticancer Res. 2007;27:659–666
  14. Issa MM, Zasada W, Ward K, et al. The value of digital rectal examination as a predictor of prostate cancer diagnosis among United States veterans referred for prostate biopsy. Cancer Detect Prev. 2006;30:269–275
  15. Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Crissman JD, et al. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma between the ages of 20-69: an autopsy study of 249 cases. In Vivo. 1994;8:439–443
  16. Bauer J, Zeng J, Weir J, et al. Three-dimensional computer-simulated prostate models: lateral prostate biopsies increase the detection rate of prostate cancer. Urology. 1999;53:961–967
  17. Kawakami S, Okuno T, Yonese J, et al. Optimal sampling sites for repeat prostate biopsy: a recursive partitioning analysis of three-dimensional 26-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol. 2007;51:675–682
  18. Guichard G, Larre S, Gallina A, et al. Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2007;52:430–435
  19. 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. 2009;164:388–392
  20. Ung JO, San Francisco IF, Regan MM, et al. The relationship of prostate gland volume to extended needle biopsy on prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2003;169:130–135
  21. Scattoni V, Roscigno M, Raber M, et al. Initial extended transrectal prostate biopsy—are more prostate cancers detected with 18 cores than with 12 cores?. J Urol. 2008;179:1327–1331
  22. Eskicorapci SY, Guliyev F, Akdogan B, et al. Individualization of the biopsy protocol according to the prostate gland volume for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2005;173:1536–1540
  23. Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol. 2001;166:86–91
  24. Singh H, Canto EI, Shariat SF, et al. Six additional systematic lateral cores enhance sextant biopsy prediction of pathological features at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;171:204–209
  25. Delongchamps NB, Haas GP. Saturation biopsies for prostate cancer: current uses and future prospects. Nat Rev Urol. 2009;6:645–652
  26. Stricker HJ, Ruddock LJ, Wan J, et al. Detection of non-palpable prostate cancer (A mathematical and laboratory model). Br J Urol. 1993;71:43–46
  27. Aetna clinical policy bulleton: prostate saturation biopsy. 2009;2009:
  28. Ching CB, Moussa AS, Li J, et al. Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? (End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates). J Urol. 2009;181:2077–2082
  29. Antonelli JA, Jones LW, Baez LL, et al. Exercise and prostate cancer risk in a cohort of veterans undergoing prostate needle biopsy. J Urol. 2009;182:2226–2231
  30. Pondman KM, Fütterer JJ, ten Haken B, et al. MR-guided biopsy of the prostate: an overview of techniques and a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2008;54:517–527

PII: S0090-4295(10)00795-8

doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.06.008

Urology
Volume 77, Issue 3 , Pages 541-547 , March 2011

Article Tools