Is there a role for anterior zone sampling as part of saturation trans-rectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy?
Tóm tắt
The prostatic anterior zone (AZ) is not targeted routinely by TRUS guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Pbx). MRI is an accurate diagnostic tool for AZ tumors, but is often unavailable due to cost or system restrictions. We examined the diagnostic yield of office based AZ TRUS-Pbx. 127 men at risk for AZ tumors were studied: Patients with elevated PSA and previous extended negative TRUS-Pbx (group 1, n = 78) and actively surveyed low risk prostate cancer patients (group 2, n = 49). None of the participants had a previous AZ biopsy. Biopsy template included suspicious ultrasonic areas, 16 peripheral zone (PZ), 4 transitional zone (TZ) and 6 AZ cores. All biopsies were performed by a single urologist under local peri-prostatic anaesthetic, using the B-K Medical US System, an end-firing probe 4-12 MHZ and 18 ga/25 cm needle. All samples were reviewed by a single specialized uro-pathologist. Multivariate analysis was used to detect predictors for AZ tumors accounting for age, PSA, PSA density, prostate volume, BMI, and number of previous biopsies. Median PSA was 10.4 (group 1) and 7.3 (group 2). Age (63.9, 64.5), number of previous biopsies (1.5) and cores (17.8, 21.3) and prostate volume (56.4 cc, 51 cc) were similar for both groups. The overall diagnostic yield was 34.6% (group 1) and 85.7% (group 2). AZ cancers were detected in 21.8% (group 1) and 34.7% (group 2) but were rarely the only zone involved (1.3% and 4.1% respectively). Gleason ≥ 7 AZ cancers were often accompanied by equal grade PZ tumors. In multivariate analysis only prostate volume predicted for AZ tumors. Patients detected with AZ tumors had significantly smaller prostates (36.9 cc vs. 61.1 cc p < 0.001). Suspicious AZ ultrasonic findings were uncommon (6.3%). TRUS-Pbx AZ sampling rarely improves the diagnostic yield of extended PZ sampling in patients with elevated PSA and previous negative biopsies. In low risk prostate cancer patients who are followed by active surveillance, AZ sampling changes risk stratification in 6% but larger studies are needed to define the role of AZ sampling in this population and its correlation with prostatectomy final pathological specimens.
Tài liệu tham khảo
McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS: Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol. 1988, 12 (12): 897-906. 10.1097/00000478-198812000-00001.
Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N: 'Prostatic evasive anterior tumours': the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int. 2010, 105 (9): 1231-1236. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08938.x.
Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C: Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2010, 183 (2): 520-527. 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.022.
Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Allen C: How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate?. Eur Urol. 2006, 50 (6): 1163-74. 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.06.025. discussion 1175
Abouassaly R, Lane BR, Jones JS: Staging saturation biopsy in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance protocol. Urology. 2008, 71 (4): 573-577. 10.1016/j.urology.2007.11.094.
Moussa AS, Meshref A, Schoenfield L: Importance of additional "extreme" anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer. Urology. 2010, 75 (5): 1034-1039. 10.1016/j.urology.2009.11.008.
Tan N, Lane BR, Li J: Prostate cancers diagnosed at repeat biopsy are smaller and less likely to be high grade. J Urol. 2008, 180 (4): 1325-9. 10.1016/j.juro.2008.06.022. discussion 1329
Zaytoun OM, Stephenson AJ, Fareed K: When serial prostate biopsy is recommended: most cancers detected are clinically insignificant. BJU Int. 2012, 110 (7): 987-992. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10958.x.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004, 240: 205-13. 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.
Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H: Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among 3 protocols with 6, 10 and 15 cores. J Urol. 2004, 171 (4): 1478-80. 10.1097/01.ju.0000116449.01186.f7. discussion 1480–1
Zaytoun OM, Anil T, Moussa AS: Morbidity of prostate biopsy after simplified versus complex preparation protocols: assessment of risk factors. Urology. 2011, 77 (4): 910-914. 10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.033.
Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A: Trans-rectal versus trans-perineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection rate?. Urology. 2011, 77 (4): 921-925. 10.1016/j.urology.2010.08.048.
Scattoni V, Maccagnano C, Zanni G: Is extended and saturation biopsy necessary?. Int J Urol. 2010, 17 (5): 432-447. 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02479.x.
Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol. 2012, 188 (6): 2152-2157. 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025.
Klotz L: Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a review. Curr Urol Rep. 2010, 11 (3): 165-171. 10.1007/s11934-010-0110-z.
Mabjeesh NJ, Lidawi G, Chen J: High detection rate of significant prostate tumours in anterior zones using transperineal ultrasound-guided template saturation biopsy. BJU Int. 2012, 110 (7): 993-997. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10972.x.
Satoh T, Matsumoto K, Fujita T: Cancer core distribution in patients diagnosed by extended transperineal prostate biopsy. Urology. 2005, 66 (1): 114-118. 10.1016/j.urology.2005.01.051.
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2490/14/34/prepub