Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 623–628 | Cite as

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

  • Jeannette Kratzenberg
  • Georg Salomon
  • Pierre Tennstedt
  • Paolo Dell’Oglio
  • Derya Tilki
  • Axel Haferkamp
  • Markus Graefen
  • Katharina Boehm
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Prostate biopsy Targeted biopsy Oncological outcome Negative biopsy 

Notes

Author contributions

Protocol/project development: KB, JK, GS, and PD. Data collection or management: GS and PT. Data analysis: KB, PT, and JK. Manuscript writing/editing: JK, KB, GS, AH, MG, and DT.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the local ethics board, and all subjects provided written informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 Google Scholar
  11. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeannette Kratzenberg
    • 1
  • Georg Salomon
    • 1
  • Pierre Tennstedt
    • 1
  • Paolo Dell’Oglio
    • 2
  • Derya Tilki
    • 1
    • 3
  • Axel Haferkamp
    • 4
  • Markus Graefen
    • 1
  • Katharina Boehm
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer CentreUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, URIIRCCS Ospedale San RaffaeleMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of UrologyUniversity Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg UniversityMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations