4.4 Article

Parasagittal biopsies add minimal information in repeat saturation prostate biopsy

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 87-89

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2003.08.040

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To compare the outcome and efficacy of lateral biopsies with parasagittal biopsies in detecting prostate cancer during repeated biopsies performed using the saturation technique, which includes 24 cores per biopsy. Prostate biopsy may miss cancer in up to 38% of men eventually found to harbor the disease. Lateral biopsies are more likely than parasagittal biopsies to detect adenocarcinoma according to the findings of several studies. Methods. A total of 100 patients, average age 62.1 +/- 7.9 years, underwent repeated transrectal ultrasound-guided saturation biopsy. The study group included 31 patients with previous biopsy results demonstrating high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, 7 with atypia, and 62 with benign prostatic tissue but persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. Patients had undergone an average of 1.65 previous biopsies. The average prostate-specific antigen level was 9.4 +/- 6.8 ng/mL. Biopsies were obtained from five sectors on each side and examined histologically. Results. Cancer was detected in 25 (25%) of the 100 patients. Malignancy was identified in the lateral cores of all patients with positive biopsies. Parasagittal biopsy cores were positive in association with a lateral-based biopsy in 9 (36%) of the 25 malignancies, for an overall parasagittal biopsy core rate of 9% (9 of 100 patients). No cancers were detected in the parasagittal biopsy cores alone. Conclusions. Inclusion of parasagittal zone biopsy cores proved to have a low yield in detecting cancer on repeated biopsy. As all patients found to have cancer in the parasagittal biopsy cores also had cancer on the lateral biopsy cores, most time and effort can be spent obtaining lateral biopsy cores to increase the sensitivity on repeated saturation biopsy. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据