Top

Published in:

01-04-2018 | Original Article

Prostate cancer rates in patients with initially negative elastography-targeted biopsy vs. systematic biopsy

Authors: Jeannette Kratzenberg, Georg Salomon, Pierre Tennstedt, Paolo Dell’Oglio, Derya Tilki, Axel Haferkamp, Markus Graefen, Katharina Boehm

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 4/2018

Abstract

Purpose

To assess whether real-time elastography-targeted biopsy (RTE-bx) is superior to the standard systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy in predicting subsequent prostate cancer (PCa) rates in patients with initially negative biopsy and to specifically reveal differences in the occurrence of high-grade (Gleason ≥ 4 + 3) PCa by comparing both biopsy methods.

Patients and methods

Overall, 630 patients had an initially negative prostate biopsy between 2007 and 2015, either RTE targeted (n = 213) or systematically (n = 417). Follow-up data, ascertained by a questionnaire, of patients receiving RTE-bx were compared to data of patients receiving systematic biopsy (sbx) using Mann–Whitney-U test and Chi-square test. We performed logistic regression analyses to assess any association with PCa or high-grade PCa occurrence.

Results

In total, 258 (41%) patients were diagnosed with PCa at repeat biopsy whereof 54 (8.6%) harboured high-grade PCa. PCa occurred in 95 (44.6%) patients with initially negative RTE-bx and in 163 (39.1%) patients with initially negative sbx (p = 0.003). 24 (11.3%) patients receiving RTE-bx and 30 (7.2%) patients receiving sbx were diagnosed with high-grade PCa (p = 0.095). Logistic regression analyses showed that patients with the initial RTE-bx vs. those with the initial sbx neither resulted in a significant higher risk for PCa occurrence (OR 1.35 [CI 0.87–2.1]; p = 0.2) nor for high-grade PCa occurrence (OR 1.52 [CI 0.66–3.35]; p = 0.3).

Conclusions

We found no statistically significant association of prior biopsy method to subsequent PCa or high-grade PCa occurrence. Referring to our analyses, RTE is not superior to sbx in predicting subsequent PCa rates and, therefore, not eligible to decide on repeat biopsy.

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21332 CrossRefPubMed

Auvinen A, Moss SM, Tammela TL, Taari K, Roobol MJ, Schroder FH, Bangma CH, Carlsson S, Aus G, Zappa M, Puliti D, Denis LJ, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Randazzo M, Paez A, Lujan M, Hugosson J (2016) Absolute effect of prostate cancer screening: balance of benefits and harms by center within the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening. Clin Cancer Res 22(1):243–249. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0941 CrossRefPubMed

Salomon G, Kollerman J, Thederan I, Chun FK, Budaus L, Schlomm T, Isbarn H, Heinzer H, Huland H, Graefen M (2008) Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54(6):1354–1362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.035 CrossRefPubMed

Resnick MJ, Lee DJ, Magerfleisch L, Vanarsdalen KN, Tomaszewski JE, Wein AJ, Malkowicz SB, Guzzo TJ (2011) Repeat prostate biopsy and the incremental risk of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. Urology 77(3):548–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.08.063 CrossRefPubMed

Salomon G, Drews N, Autier P, Beckmann A, Heinzer H, Hansen J, Michl U, Schlomm T, Haese A, Steuber T, Graefen M, Becker A (2014) Incremental detection rate of prostate cancer by real-time elastography targeted biopsies in combination with a conventional 10-core biopsy in 1024 consecutive patients. BJU Int 113(4):548–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12517 CrossRefPubMed

Zhang Y, Tang J, Li YM, Fei X, He EH, Li QY, Shi HY (2012) The contribution of strain patterns in characterization of prostate peripheral zone lesions at transrectal ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 53(1):119–126. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2011.110504 CrossRefPubMed

Aigner F, Pallwein L, Junker D, Schafer G, Mikuz G, Pedross F, Mitterberger MJ, Jaschke W, Halpern EJ, Frauscher F (2010) Value of real-time elastography targeted biopsy for prostate cancer detection in men with prostate specific antigen 1.25 ng/ml or greater and 4.00 ng/ml or less. J Urol 184(3):913–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.05.026 CrossRefPubMed

Ganzer R, Brandtner A, Wieland WF, Fritsche HM (2012) Prospective blinded comparison of real-time sonoelastography targeted versus randomised biopsy of the prostate in the primary and re-biopsy setting. World J Urol 30(2):219–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0679-y CrossRefPubMed

Boehm K, Tennstedt P, Beyer B, Schiffmann J, Beckmann A, Michl U, Beyersdorff D, Budaus L, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Salomon G (2016) Additional elastography-targeted biopsy improves the agreement between biopsy Gleason grade and Gleason grade at radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 34(6):805–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1714-1 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, Matveev VB, Moldovan PC, van den Bergh RC, Van den Broeck T, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouviere O, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Cornford P (2016) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003

11.

Konig K, Scheipers U, Pesavento A, Lorenz A, Ermert H, Senge T (2005) Initial experiences with real-time elastography guided biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 174(1):115–117. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000162043.72294.4a CrossRefPubMed

12.

Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N, European Association of U (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Frohner M, Khan C, Koch R, Schorr SG, Wirth M (2014) Implementation of the S3 prostate cancer guideline in daily clinical practice: results of a survey among urologists. Urologe A 53(10):1500–1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-014-3518-0 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Benecchi L, Pieri AM, Melissari M, Potenzoni M, Pastizzaro CD (2008) A novel nomogram to predict the probability of prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. J Urol 180(1):146–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.043 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Chun FK, Briganti A, Graefen M, Porter C, Montorsi F, Haese A, Scattoni V, Borden L, Steuber T, Salonia A, Schlomm T, Latchemsetty K, Walz J, Kim J, Eichelberg C, Currlin E, Ahyai SA, Erbersdobler A, Valiquette L, Heinzer H, Rigatti P, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI (2007) Development and external validation of an extended repeat biopsy nomogram. J Urol 177(2):510–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.025 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Struve P, Horninger W, Aigner F, Bartsch G, Gradl J, Schurich M, Pedross F, Frauscher F (2007) Comparison of sonoelastography guided biopsy with systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. Eur Radiol 17(9):2278–2285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0606-1 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Pinggera G, Aigner F, Pedross F, Gradl J, Pelzer A, Bartsch G, Frauscher F (2008) Sonoelastography of the prostate: comparison with systematic biopsy findings in 492 patients. Eur J Radiol 65(2):304–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.03.032 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Schiffmann J, Grindei M, Tian Z, Yassin DJ, Steinwender T, Leyh-Bannurah SR, Randazzo M, Kwiatkowski M, Karakiewicz PI, Hammerer P, Manka L (2016) Limitations of elastography based prostate biopsy. J Urol 195(6):1731–1736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.086 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Taverna G, Magnoni P, Giusti G, Seveso M, Benetti A, Hurle R, Colombo P, Minuti F, Grizzi F, Graziotti P (2013) Impact of real-time elastography versus systematic prostate biopsy method on cancer detection rate in men with a serum prostate-specific antigen between 2.5 and 10 ng/mL. ISRN Oncol 2013:584672. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/584672 PubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Zhu Y, Chen Y, Qi T, Jiang J, Qi J, Yu Y, Yao X, Guan W (2014) Prostate cancer detection with real-time elastography using a bi-plane transducer: comparison with step section radical prostatectomy pathology. World J Urol 32(2):329–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-012-0922-1 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, Marchand C, Terry S, Allory Y, Vacherot F, Abbou CC, Salomon L, de la Taille A (2013) Risk of repeat biopsy and prostate cancer detection after an initial extended negative biopsy: longitudinal follow-up from a prospective trial. BJU Int 111(6):988–996. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11607.x CrossRefPubMed

22.

Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, Ryniker L, Turkbey B, Kavoussi LR, Villani R, Rastinehad AR (2015) In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int 115(4):562–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12938 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Junker D, Schafer G, Kobel C, Kremser C, Bektic J, Jaschke W, Aigner F (2014) Comparison of real-time elastography and multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a whole-mount step-section analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202(3):W263–W269. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11061 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Nam RK, Wallis CJ, Stojcic-Bendavid J, Milot L, Sherman C, Sugar L, Haider MA (2016) A pilot study to evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer screening in the general population. J Urol 196(2):361–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.114 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Prostate cancer rates in patients with initially negative elastography-targeted biopsy vs. systematic biopsy
Authors: Jeannette Kratzenberg
Georg Salomon
Pierre Tennstedt
Paolo Dell’Oglio
Derya Tilki
Axel Haferkamp
Markus Graefen
Katharina Boehm
Publication date: 01-04-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2178-x

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Prostate cancer rates in patients with initially negative elastography-targeted biopsy vs. systematic biopsy

Abstract

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Viability and biocompatibility of an adhesive system for intrarenal embedding and endoscopic removal of small residual fragments in minimally-invasive stone treatment in an in vivo pig model

Novel technology of molecular radio-guidance for lymph node dissection in recurrent prostate cancer by PSMA-ligands

No convincing evidence on differences in metabolic effects of medical and surgical castration in the treatment of prostate cancer

Robotic surgery in public hospitals of Latin-America: a castle of sand?

Is the laser mightier than the sword? A comparative study for the urethrotomy

Three dimensional models in uro-oncology: a future built with additive fabrication