Identifying candidates for active surveillance: An evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer - Abstract

PURPOSE:Active surveillance is increasingly recommended to reduce overtreatment in men with favorable risk prostate cancer.

A repeat confirmatory biopsy has become the standard recommendation for these men to increase the precision of this risk attribution. We investigate the usefulness of this approach by comparing the current practice standard, repeat transrectal ultrasound biopsy, with template prostate mapping.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:A total of 124 men who were attributed a favorable risk prostate cancer status based on transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy and who were considering a policy of active surveillance underwent combined transrectal ultrasound biopsy and template prostate mapping as a confirmatory strategy. Maximum Gleason grade and disease burden were compared between the 2 confirmatory tests.

RESULTS:Depending on the definition used between 8% and 22% of men had prostate cancer reclassified as clinically important by repeat transrectal ultrasound biopsy whereas template guided prostate mapping reclassified the disease in 41% to 85% of the men. Repeat transrectal ultrasound biopsy failed to detect up to 80% of clinically important cancers detected by the reference standard. The sensitivity of repeat transrectal ultrasound biopsy to identify clinically important disease varied from 9% to 24% with the negative predictive value ranging from 23% to 60%.

CONCLUSIONS: When applied to a population of men initially deemed to have favorable risk prostate cancer, transrectal ultrasound biopsy will miss a large proportion of clinically important cancers compared to template guided prostate mapping. The usefulness of repeat transrectal ultrasound biopsy in ruling out clinically important prostate cancer needs to be reconsidered.

Written by:
Barzell WE, Melamed MR, Cathcart P, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Emberton M.   Are you the author?
Urology Treatment Center-21C Oncology and the Florida State University College of Medicine, Sarasota, Florida.

Reference: J Urol. 2012 Sep;188(3):762-8.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.107


PubMed Abstract
PMID: 22818143

UroToday.com Prostate Cancer Section