Review

Effect of the number of biopsy cores on prostate cancer detection and staging

Cancer Prognostics & Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), 1058, rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2X 3J4 and Department of Urology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy

Search for more papers by this author

Maxine Sun

Cancer Prognostics & Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), 1058, rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2X 3J4

Search for more papers by this author

Lars Budäus

Cancer Prognostics & Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), 1058, rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2X 3J4 and Martini-clinic, Prostate Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Search for more papers by this author

Rodolphe Thuret

Cancer Prognostics & Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), 1058, rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2X 3J4 and Department of Urology, University of Montpellier Health Centre, Montpellier, France

Search for more papers by this author

Shahrokh F Shariat

Cancer Prognostics & Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center (CHUM), 1058, rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2X 3J4

Search for more papers by this author

Paul Perrotte

Department of Urology, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Search for more papers by this author

Pierre I Karakiewicz

† Author for correspondence

Search for more papers by this author

Email the corresponding author at pierre.karakiewicz@umontreal.ca

Published Online:11 Mar 2010https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.10.4

View article

Abstract

Digital rectal examination, serum concentration of prostate cancer-specific antigen and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies are currently the main diagnostic tools to detect evidence of prostate cancer. Different prostatic biopsy strategies have been proposed in order to achieve an optimal prostate cancer detection rate and an accurate characterization of prostate cancer stage and grade. We examined the role of the number of biopsy cores on prostate cancer detection rates at initial and repeat biopsies. Moreover, we examined the relationship between the number of biopsy cores and the detection of insignificant prostate cancer. Finally, we reviewed the ability of biopsy cores in predicting prostate cancer stage and grade at radical prostatectomy. We relied on a PubMed systematic review of the contemporary English language literature using the terms ‘prostate cancer’, ‘diagnosis’, ‘transrectal ultrasound’ and ‘prostate biopsy’.

Keywords:

Bibliography

1 Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al.: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur. Urol.53(1),68–80 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2 Chun FK-H, Briganti A, Graefen M et al.: Development and external validation of an extended 10-core biopsy nomogram. Eur. Urol.52(2),436–444 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3 Presti JC Jr: Prostate biopsy: how many cores are enough? Urol. Oncol.21(2),135–140 (2003).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
4 Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J: Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J. Urol.175(5),1605–1612 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
5 Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F: Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur. Urol.52(5),1309–1322 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6 Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA: Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J. Urol.142(1),71–74; discussion 4–5 (1989).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
7 Stamey TA: Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology45(1),2–12 (1995).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
8 Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparen P, Norlen BJ, Busch C: The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology50(4),562–566 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
9 Rabbani F, Stroumbakis N, Kava BR, Cookson MS, Fair WR: Incidence and clinical significance of false-negative sextant prostate biopsies. J. Urol.159(4),1247–1250 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
10 Levine MA, Ittman M, Melamed J, Lepor H: Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer. J. Urol.159(2),471–475; discussion 5–6 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
11 Durkan GC, Sheikh N, Johnson P, Hildreth AJ, Greene DR: Improving prostate cancer detection with an extended-core transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy protocol. BJU Int.89(1),33–39 (2002).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
12 Singh H, Canto EI, Shariat SF et al.: Improved detection of clinically significant, curable prostate cancer with systematic 12-core biopsy. J. Urol.171(3),1089–1092 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 Elabbady AA, Khedr MM: Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur. Urol.49(1),49–53; discussion (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
14 Presti JC Jr: Repeat prostate biopsy – when, where, and how. Urol. Oncol.27(3),312–314 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
15 Delongchamps NB, Haas GP: Saturation biopsies for prostate cancer: current uses and future prospects. Nat. Rev. Urol.6(12),645–652 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
16 Watanabe H, Kato H, Kato T: Diagnostic application of ultrasonotomography to the prostate. Nippon Hinyokika Gakkay Zasshi59,273–279 (1968).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
17 Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford CL Jr et al. Clinical application of transrectal ultrasonography and prostate specific antigen in the search for prostate cancer. J. Urol.139(4),758–761 (1988).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
18 Shinohara K, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT: The appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography: correlation of imaging and pathological examinations. J. Urol.142(1),76–82 (1989).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
19 McNeal JE: The prostate and prostatic urethra: a morphologic synthesis. J. Urol.107(6),1008–1016 (1972).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
20 Uzzo RG, Wei JT, Waldbaum RS, Perlmutter AP, Byrne JC, Vaughan ED Jr: The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. Urology46(6),831–836 (1995).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
21 Karakiewicz PI, Bazinet M, Aprikian AG et al.: Outcome of sextant biopsy according to gland volume. Urology49(1),55–59 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
22 Chen ME, Troncoso P, Johnston DA, Tang K, Babaian RJ: Optimization of prostate biopsy strategy using computer based analysis. J. Urol.158(6),2168–2175 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
23 Chen ME, Troncoso P, Tang K, Babaian RJ, Johnston D: Comparison of prostate biopsy schemes by computer simulation. Urology53(5),951–960 (1999).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
24 Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C et al.: An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol.45(4),444–448; discussion 8–9 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
25 Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K et al.: A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J. Urol.163(1),152–157 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
26 Ravery V, Goldblatt L, Royer B, Blanc E, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L: Extensive biopsy protocol improves the detection rate of prostate cancer. J. Urol.164(2),393–396 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
27 Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K: The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J. Urol.163(1),163–166; discussion 6–7 (2000).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28 Presti JC Jr, O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Mattu R, Veltri RW: Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J. Urol.169(1),125–129 (2003).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
29 Gore JL, Shariat SF, Miles BJ et al.: Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J. Urol.165(5),1554–1559 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
30 Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL: Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J. Urol.157(1),199–202; discussion 202–203 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
31 Scattoni V, Roscigno M, Raber M et al.: Initial extended transrectal prostate biopsy – are more prostate cancers detected with 18 cores than with 12 cores? J. Urol.179(4),1327–1331; discussion 31 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
32 Iguchi T, Wang CY, Delongchamps NB et al.: Occult prostate cancer effects the results of case–control studies due to verification bias. Anticancer Res.28,3007–3010 (2008).Medline, Google Scholar
33 Punglia RS, D’Amico AV, Catalona WJ, Roehl KA, Kuntz KM: Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. N. Engl. J. Med.349(4),335–342 (2003).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
34 Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC: Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA281(17),1591–1597 (1999).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
35 De la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L et al.: Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology61(6),1181–1186 (2003).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
36 Ravery V, Dominique S, Panhard X, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L: The 20-core prostate biopsy protocol – a new gold standard? J. Urol.179(2),504–507 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
37 Guichard G, Larre S, Gallina A et al.: Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur. Urol.52(2),430–435 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
38 Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield L, Rabets JC, Zippe CD, Magi-Galluzzi C: Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J. Urol.175(2),485–488 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
39 Pepe P, Aragona F: Saturation prostate needle biopsy and prostate cancer detection at initial and repeat evaluation. Urology70(6),1131–1135 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
40 Delongchamps NB, de la Roza G, Jones R, Jumbelic M, Haas G: Saturation biopsies on autopsied prostates for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int.103,49–54 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
41 McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA: Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.12(12),897–906 (1988).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
42 Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB: Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA271(5),368–374 (1994).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
43 Stamey TA, Sozen TS, Yemoto CM, McNeal JE: Classification of localized untreated prostate cancer based on 791 men treated only with radical prostatectomy: common ground for therapeutic trials and TNM subgroups. J. Urol.159(6),2009–2012 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
44 Peyromaure M, Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod L: The role of the biopsy of the transitonal zone and of the seminal vesicles in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. Suppl.1(6),40–46 (2002).Crossref, Google Scholar
45 Bazinet M, Karakiewicz PI, Aprikian AG et al.: Value of systematic transition zone biopsies in the early detection of prostate cancer. J. Urol.155(2),605–606 (1996).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
46 Terris MK, Pham TQ, Issa MM, Kabalin JN: Routine transition zone and seminal vesicle biopsies in all patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies are not indicated. J. Urol.157(1),204–206 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
47 Onder AU, Yalcin V, Arar O, Yaycioglu O, Citci A, Solok V: Impact of transition zone biopsies in detection and evaluation of prostate cancer. Eur. Urol.33(6),542–548 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
48 Morote J, Lopez M, Encabo G, de Torres I: Value of routine transition zone biopsies in patients undergoing ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies for the first time. Eur. Urol.35(4),294–297 (1999).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
49 Pelzer AE, Bektic J, Berger AP et al.: Are transition zone biopsies still necessary to improve prostate cancer detection? Results from the tyrol screening project. Eur. Urol.48(6),916–921; discussion 21 (2005).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
50 Fleshner NE, O’Sullivan M, Fair WR: Prevalence and predictors of a positive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided needle biopsy of the prostate. J. Urol.158(2),505–508; discussion 8–9 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
51 Applewhite JC, Matlaga BR, McCullough DL: Results of the 5 region prostate biopsy method: the repeat biopsy population. J. Urol.168(2),500–503 (2002).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
52 Mian BM, Naya Y, Okihara K, Vakar-Lopez F, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ: Predictors of cancer in repeat extended multisite prostate biopsy in men with previous negative extended multisite biopsy. Urology60(5),836–840 (2002).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
53 Chon CH, Lai FC, McNeal JE, Presti JC Jr: Use of extended systematic sampling in patients with a prior negative prostate needle biopsy. J. Urol.167(6),2457–2460 (2002).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
54 Philip J, Hanchanale V, Foster CS, Javle P: Importance of peripheral biopsies in maximising the detection of early prostate cancer in repeat 12-core biopsy protocols. BJU Int.98(3),559–562 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
55 Chun FK, Briganti A, Graefen M et al.: Development and external validation of an extended repeat biopsy nomogram. J. Urol.177(2),510–515 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
56 Borboroglu PG, Comer SW, Riffenburgh RH, Amling CL: Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J. Urol.163(1),158–162 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
57 Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM: Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J. Urol.166(1),86–91; discussion 91–92 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
58 Fleshner N, Klotz L: Role of ‘saturation biopsy’ in the detection of prostate cancer among difficult diagnostic cases. Urology60(1),93–97 (2002).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
59 Rabets JC, Jones JS, Patel A, Zippe CD: Prostate cancer detection with office based saturation biopsy in a repeat biopsy population. J. Urol.172(1),94–97 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
60 Patel AR, Jones JS, Rabets J, DeOreo G, Zippe CD: Parasagittal biopsies add minimal information in repeat saturation prostate biopsy. Urology63(1),87–89 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
61 Walz J, Graefen M, Chun FK et al.: High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series. Eur. Urol.50(3),498–505 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
62 Tan N, Lane BR, Li J, Moussa AS, Soriano M, Jones JS: Prostate cancers diagnosed at repeat biopsy are smaller and less likely to be high grade. J. Urol.180(4),1325–1329; discussion 1329 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
63 Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP: Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer71(3 Suppl.),933–938 (1993).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
64 Haas GP, Delongchamps NB, Jones RF et al.: Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. J. Natl Cancer Inst.99(19),1484–1489 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
65 Eskew LA, Woodruff RD, Bare RL, McCullough DL: Prostate cancer diagnosed by the 5 region biopsy method is significant disease. J. Urol.160(3 Pt 1),794–796 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
66 Chan TY, Chan DY, Stutzman KL, Epstein JI: Does increased needle biopsy sampling of the prostate detect a higher number of potentially insignificant tumors? J. Urol.166(6),2181–2184 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
67 Meng MV, Elkin EP, DuChane J, Carroll PR: Impact of increased number of biopsies on the nature of prostate cancer identified. J. Urol.176(1),63–68; discussion 9 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
68 Siu W, Dunn RL, Shah RB, Wei JT: Use of extended pattern technique for initial prostate biopsy. J. Urol.174(2),505–509 (2005).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
69 Boccon-Gibod LM, de Longchamps NB, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod LA, Ravery V: Prostate saturation biopsy in the reevaluation of microfocal prostate cancer. J. Urol.176(3),961–963; discussion 3–4 (2006).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
70 Delongchamps NB, de la Roza G, Chandan V et al.: Diagnostic accuracy of extended biopsies for the staging of microfocal prostate cancers in autopsy specimen. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis.12,137–142 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
71 Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, Eggener SE, Eastham JA, Guillonneau BD: Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate repeat biopsy in patients eligible for active surveillance. J. Urol.180(5),1964–1967; discussion 7–8 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
72 Bostwick DG: Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.18(8),796–803 (1994).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
73 Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI: Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.21(5),566–576 (1997).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
74 King CR: Patterns of prostate cancer biopsy grading: trends and clinical implications. Int. J. Cancer90(6),305–311 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
75 San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, Upton M, Olumi AF: Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J. Urol.169(1),136–140 (2003).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
76 Emiliozzi P, Maymone S, Paterno A et al.: Increased accuracy of biopsy Gleason score obtained by extended needle biopsy. J. Urol.172(6 Pt 1),2224–2226 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
77 Coogan CL, Latchamsetty KC, Greenfield J, Corman JM, Lynch B, Porter CR: Increasing the number of biopsy cores improves the concordance of biopsy Gleason score to prostatectomy Gleason score. BJU Int.96(3),324–327 (2005).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
78 Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK et al.: Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology67(2),379–383 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
79 Divrik RT, Eroglu A, Sahin A, Zorlu F, Ozen H: Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Urol. Oncol.25(5),376–382 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
80 Capitanio U, Karakiewicz PI, Valiquette L et al.: Biopsy core number represents one of foremost predictors of clinically significant gleason sum upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Urology73(5),1087–1091 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
81 Numao N, Kawakami S, Yokoyama M et al.: Improved accuracy in predicting the presence of Gleason pattern 4/5 prostate cancer by three-dimensional 26-core systematic biopsy. Eur. Urol.52(6),1663–1668 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
82 Naya Y, Ochiai A, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ: A comparison of extended biopsy and sextant-biopsy schemes for predicting the pathological stage of prostate cancer. J. Urol.171(6 Pt 1),2203–2208 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
83 Schulte RT, Wood DP, Daignault S, Shah RB, Wei JT: Utility of extended pattern prostate biopsies for tumor localization: pathologic correlations after radical prostatectomy. Cancer113(7),1559–1565 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
84 Paul R, Scholer S, van Randenborgh H et al.: Morbidity of prostatic biopsy for different biopsy strategies: is there a relation to core number and sampling region? Eur. Urology45,450–456 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
85 Peyromaure M, Ravery V, Messas A, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L, Boccon-Gibod L: Pain and morbidity of an extensive prostate 10-biopsy protocol: a prospective study in 289 patients. J. Urol.167,218–221 (2002).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
86 Ecke TH, Gunia S, Bartel P, Hallmann S, Koch S, Ruttloff J: Complications and risk factors of transrectal ultrasound guided needle biopsies of the prostate evaluated by questionnaire. Urol. Oncol.26,474–478 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
87 Tricoli JV, Schoenfeldt M, Conley BA: Detection of prostate cancer and predicting progression: current and future diagnostic markers. Clin. Cancer Res.10(12 Pt 1),3943–3953 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
88 Quinn DI, Henshall SM, Sutherland RL: Molecular markers of prostate cancer outcome. Eur. J. Cancer41(6),858–887 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
89 Jhavar S, Bartlett J, Kovacs G et al.: Biopsy tissue microarray study of Ki-67 expression in untreated, localized prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis.12(2),143–147 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
90 Zellweger T, Gunther S, Zlobec I et al.: Tumour growth fraction measured by immunohistochemical staining of Ki67 is an independent prognostic factor in preoperative prostate biopsies with small-volume or low-grade prostate cancer. Int. J. Cancer124(9),2116–2123 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
91 Vergis R, Corbishley CM, Norman AR et al.: Intrinsic markers of tumour hypoxia and angiogenesis in localised prostate cancer and outcome of radical treatment: a retrospective analysis of two randomised radiotherapy trials and one surgical cohort study. Lancet Oncol.9(4),342–351 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
92 Amiel GE, Slawin KM: Newer modalities of ultrasound imaging and treatment of the prostate. Urol. Clin. North Am.33(3),329–337 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
93 Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Gradl J et al.: Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastography in imaging of prostate cancer. Curr. Opin. Urol.17(1),39–47 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
94 Salomon G, Kollerman J, Thederan I et al.: 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 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
95 Onik G, Miessau M, Bostwick DG: Three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially significant impact on prostate cancer management. J. Clin. Oncol.27(26),4321–4326 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
101 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer Early Detection www.nccn.orgGoogle Scholar

Vol. 6, No. 3

Metrics

Downloaded 123 times

History

Published online 11 March 2010

Published in print March 2010

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

Pierre I Karakiewicz is partially supported by the University of Montreal Urology Associates, Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Québec, the University of Montreal Department of Surgery and the University of Montreal Foundation. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download