Elsevier

Urology

Volume 66, Issue 2, August 2005, Pages 356-360
Urology

Adult urology
Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.03.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives

To determine whether potential candidates for watchful waiting have undersampling of more substantial cancer.

Methods

A total of 103 men were studied, who were predicted to have insignificant cancer in their radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen. All had limited cancer on routine needle biopsy (no core with more than 50% involvement; Gleason score less than 7, and fewer than 3 cores involved) with a serum prostate-specific antigen density of 0.15 or less. Insignificant tumor at RP was considered organ-confined tumor, no Gleason pattern 4 or 5, and a tumor volume of less than 0.5 cm3. Saturation biopsy (average 44 cores) and an alternate biopsy saturation scheme with one half the number of cores using an 18-gauge Biopty gun was performed in the pathology laboratory on totally embedded and serially sectioned RP specimens.

Results

Of the tumors, 97% were organ confined. The RP Gleason score was less than 7 in 84% of the cases. The RP tumor volume was 0.01 to 2.39 cm3 (median 0.14). Of the cancer specimens, 71% were insignificant and 29% had been incorrectly classified before surgery using standard biopsy schemes. Using the full saturation biopsy scheme, if we predicted significant cancer, the probability of having insignificant cancer was only 11.5% (false-positive rate). If the model predicted insignificant cancer, the probability of significant cancer was also only 11.5% (false-negative rate; sensitivity 71.9% and specificity 95.8%). Using the alternate biopsy sampling scheme, the false-positive rate was 8% and the false-negative rate was 11.4% (sensitivity 71.9% and specificity 97.1%).

Conclusions

Saturation biopsy provides accurate predictability of prostate tumor volume and grade to select suitable candidates for watchful waiting therapy.

Section snippets

Material and methods

Using the preoperative needle biopsy pathologic findings and serum PSA levels, RP candidates were identified who were likely to harbor insignificant prostate cancer and who, alternatively, could have been considered for expectant management. Consecutive patients undergoing RP were selected for the following features. Clinically, all patients were required to have nonpalpable disease (Stage T1c) with a PSA density of less than 0.15. The serum PSA density was calculated using the prostate weight

Preoperative Clinical and Pathologic Findings

Patients ranged in age from 40 to 71 years (mean 59.6, median 57). The serum PSA level ranged from 0.7 to 8.6 ng/mL (mean 4.6, median 4.7). The serum PSA density level ranged from 0.013 to 0.15 (mean and median 0.08). Of the preoperative needle biopsies, 76 (73.8%) showed only one core involved. The remaining cases had two cores involved. The maximal percentage of core involvement by cancer ranged from 5% to 40% (mean 12.4%), with 53% of cases showing less than 5% involvement.

Pathologic Findings at RP

The prostate

Comment

With increased detection of early prostate cancer using serum PSA testing, concern has been raised that an increasing number of prostate cancers detected by such tests may be clinically insignificant, resulting in potentially unnecessary definitive therapy. Some authorities have even questioned whether serum PSA levels that are moderately elevated (less than 10 ng/mL) do not reflect prostate cancer, but rather correlate more with benign prostatic hyperplasia.5 If so, biopsies detecting cancer

Conclusions

Although none of the tests to predict significant versus insignificant cancer will be 100% accurate, saturation needle biopsy sampling provides a rational, accurate measurement of tumor extent and grade within the prostate to allow better stratification of men who are candidates for watchful waiting. Nevertheless, even with saturation biopsy, a small percentage of men will have more significant, but undersampled, cancer who will have been falsely predicted as having insignificant cancer because

Cited by (0)

View full text