Repeat prostate biopsies predict location of index cancer in an active surveillance cohort

Department of Urology and Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
BJU International (Impact Factor: 3.53). 03/2011; 108(9):1415-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10176.x
Source: PubMed


• To evaluate the ability of repeat prostate biopsies to determine the location of the index cancer for men on prostate cancer surveillance.
• Forty-five men on active surveillance had a record of the locations of their positive diagnostic biopsy, repeat surveillance biopsy and index cancer (i.e. largest cancer) from prostatectomy specimens. • Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between two consecutive needle biopsies showing cancer in an identical location and the outcome of finding the index cancer at the same location as the initial diagnostic biopsy.
• Eighteen of 45 (40%) men ultimately had an index cancer at the same location as their diagnostic biopsy. • Thirteen men had two consecutive biopsies that showed cancer at the same location each time; nine of these men ultimately had an index cancer at that same location. • In multivariable logistic regression analysis of men with at least two biopsies, having two initial consecutive biopsies with the same location increased the odds (odds ratio 5.9; 95% CI 1.1-31, P= 0.037) of having an index cancer at the same location as the initial biopsy in a cohort of men on active surveillance.
• A substantial proportion of men in an active surveillance cohort who undergo prostatectomy ultimately have evidence of an index cancer at the same location as their initial biopsy. • This is more likely to be the case when a repeat biopsy shows evidence of cancer at the same location.


Available from: Fadi Brimo
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Focal therapy for prostate cancer has been increasingly utilized with the goal of effective disease control while maximizing patient functional outcomes. The optimal patient selection criteria are not known and therefore are not standardized. This review compares the available expert panel consensus guidelines with the selection criteria utilized in recently published focal therapy trials. Because the data from focal trials are still maturing, the currently enrolling clinical trials are reviewed as well. In addition, the recent literature regarding technological advances in prostate biopsy and imaging strategies are added to the current guidelines to recommend a rationale for patient selection.
    Current Urology Reports 02/2012; 13(2):160-9. DOI:10.1007/s11934-012-0241-5 · 1.51 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To assess the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in identifying pathological-index (path-index) lesions, defined as cancer present in the same prostate sextant in two separate surveillance biopsies, in men followed within an active surveillance (AS) programme for low-risk prostate cancer (CaP) with extended follow-up. Materials and Methods A total of 50 men, representing >215 person-years of follow-up in an AS programme, who were referred for prostate MRI were randomly chosen to have their images reviewed by a radiologist with expertise in prostate MRI, who was blinded to biopsy results. Index lesions on MRI were defined as a single suspicious lesion ≥10 mm or >2 lesions in a given prostate sextant. Lesions on MRI were considered suspicious if ≥2 abnormal parameters co-registered anatomically. Path-index lesions were defined as cancer present in a given prostate sextant on two separate biopsy sessions. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated to test the performance of MRI for identifying path-index lesions. Clinical and pathological features were compared between men with and without a MRI-index lesion. Results A total of 31 path-index and 13 MRI-index lesions were detected in 22 and 10 patients, respectively. Multiparametric MRI demonstrated excellent specificity and negative predictive value (0.974 and 0.897, respectively) for the detection of path-index lesions. Sensitivity (0.19) and positive predictive value (0.46) were considerably lower. Patients with an index lesion on MRI were younger and less likely to have met the 'Epstein' criteria for very low-risk CaP. Compared with men without an MRI lesion, a significant increase in biopsy reclassification was noted for men with a MRI lesion (40 vs 12.5%, P = 0.04). Conclusions A non-suspicious MRI was highly correlated with a lack of path-index lesions in an AS population. Multiparametric MRI may be useful in both the selection and monitoring of patients undergoing AS.
    BJU International 03/2013; 111(7). DOI:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11641.x · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Active surveillance for prostate cancer has grown systematically in the recent years with more robust mid-term outcomes. However, changes in Gleason score during serial biopsies are not detailed in many of these reports. Objectives To evaluate changes in Gleason score on follow-up biopsies in low-risk prostate cancer in patients undergoing AS program in our center. Material and methods Series of patients diagnosed of prostate cancer between 2004 and 2013 have been analyzed. The inclusion criteria were: PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml + Gleason ≤ 6 + T1c/T2a + ≤ 2 positive cores, and no more than 50% of affected core. The pathology of each of the biopsies was analyzed. Results We studied a series of 175 patients undergoing AS. Mean follow-up was 3.96 years (SD 2.4). Follow-up biopsies with Gleason scores ≥ 7 were: 5.72% in the first biopsy, 7.39% and 7.41% in subsequent biopsies. By contrast, in 42.03% of cases did not show evident tumor involvement in the first biopsy, 40.74% and 51.85% in the second and third biopsies respectively. Median stay in the AS program was: 90.99 months (95% CI: 53.53-128.46) in patients with first positive biopsy vs. 96.66 months (95% CI: 63.19-130.13) in those without evidence of tumor. Conclusions In our series the pathological data of the first 3 biopsies remain stable in terms of the positive biopsy rate, Gleason score, or indication of active treatment proportions. Those patients who do not show evidence of malignancy in the first follow-up biopsy are less likely to need active treatment than the other patients in the series.
    Actas urologicas españolas 01/2014; · 1.02 Impact Factor
Show more