Introduction: The objective of this study was to determine whether an increased number of transrectal biopsy cores improves the accuracy of the biopsy Gleason score. Materials and Methods: This study included a total of 225 patients who were diagnosed as having prostate cancer by transrectal needle biopsy and subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) without neoadjuvant therapy. The rate of grading concordance between biopsy and RP specimens was analyzed by dividing these patients into 2 groups as follows: group A, 107 patients who underwent transrectal biopsy sampling of 9 cores or less (median 8 cores), and group B, 118 patients who underwent biopsy sampling of 10 cores or more (median 12 cores). Results: Concordance between the biopsy and RP Gleason scores in group A (53.3%) was significantly lower than that in group B (69.5%). Upgrading of the biopsy Gleason score in group A (38.3%) was significantly more frequent than that in group B (21.2%). Furthermore, these findings tended to be more prominent as the biopsy Gleason score was lower. Multivariate analysis identified the number of biopsy cores and percent of positive biopsy cores as independent predictors of accurate Gleason grading regardless of other parameters examined in this study. Conclusion: These findings suggest that obtaining a greater number of biopsy cores contributes to improving the accuracy of the biopsy Gleason score for predicting the RP Gleason score; therefore, extended sampling of biopsy cores could provide optimal guidance to determine the therapeutic options in patients with prostate cancer.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Gleason score, Transrectal prostate biopsy, Radical prostatectomy
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
2007
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.