Objective: To determine the indication of routine transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy (TRUSBx) of the prostate gland following incidental cancer diagnosis after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Materials and Methods: A multi-institutional search identified 63 patients with incidental TURP-diagnosed prostate cancer from 2001 to 2010, who underwent subsequent TRUSBx or radical prostatectomy (RP). The Gleason scores from TURP were compared to those from TRUSBx or RP. Whole mount maps from RP were analysed to provide an anatomical basis for the correlation observed. To determine the clinical impact of this problem, the incidence of TURP-diagnosed prostate cancer in the population was also determined. Results: Of 22 patients who underwent TRUSBx, the rates of Gleason score concordance, upgrading and downgrading were 32, 14 and 54% respectively (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.20). Most cases of pathological downgrading consisted of benign cores at biopsy. Therefore, TRUSBx did not give additional Gleason score (GS) information in 86% of patients. Of 41 RP patients, the respective rates were 61, 22 and 17% (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.15). The majority of them retained a similar or lower GS between TURP and RP. Of 13 whole mount maps analysed, 6 (46%) were found with anterior/transitional zone (AZ/TZ) tumours, 6 (46%) with multifocal tumours and 1 (8%) with a large peripheral zone (PZ) tumour extending into the TZ. Regional population data show that despite a gradual reduction in the proportion of TURP-diagnosed cases over the past decade, they still account for 8.5-13% of all new cases. Conclusion: TURP-diagnosed prostate cancers represent predominantly AZ tumours. A TRUSBx does not give additional GS information in a majority of cases, and therefore is not routinely indicated. It may be selectively useful prior to active surveillance, but not in all pursuing radical treatment. These findings may help reduce unnecessary TRUSBx in the population.

Journal Section:
Editor's choice
Keywords:
Prostatectomy, Needle biopsy, Transurethral prostate resection, Surgical pathology, Gleason grading
1.
Reich O, Gratzke C, Stief CG: Techniques and long-term results of surgical procedures for BPH. Eur Urol 2006;49:970-978; discussion 978.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.072
2.
Zigeuner R, Schips L, Lipsky K, et al: Detection of prostate cancer by TURP or open surgery in patients with previously negative transrectal prostate biopsies. Urology 2003;62:883-887.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(03)00663-0
3.
Andrèn O, Garmo H, Mucci L, et al: Incidence and mortality of incidental prostate cancer: a Swedish register-based study. Br J Cancer 2008;100:170-173.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604834
4.
Merrill RM, Wiggins CL: Incidental detection of population-based prostate cancer incidence rates through transurethral resection of the prostate. Urol Oncol 2002;7:213-219.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1078-1439(02)00193-X
5.
Ornstein DK, Rao GS, Smith DS, Andriole GL: The impact of systematic prostate biopsy on prostate cancer incidence in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol 1997;157:880-883; discussion 883-884.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65072-9
6.
Dellavedova T, Ponzano R, Racca L, et al: Prostate cancer as incidental finding in transurethral resection. Arch Esp Urol 2010;63:855-861.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.4321/S0004-06142010001000005
7.
McNeal JE: Origin and development of carcinoma in the prostate. Cancer 1969;23:24-34.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(196901)23:1<24::AID-CNCR2820230103>3.0.CO;2-1
8.
McNeal JE: The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate 1981;2:35-49.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.2990020105
9.
Chen ME, Johnston DA, Tang K, et al: Detailed mapping of prostate carcinoma foci: biopsy strategy implications. Cancer 2000;89:1800-1809.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20001015)89:8<1800::AID-CNCR21>3.0.CO;2-D
10.
Djavan B, Waldert M, Zlotta A, et al: Safety and morbidity of first and repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsies: results of a prospective European prostate cancer detection study. J Urol 2001;166:856-860.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65851-X
11.
Ghani KR, Dundas D, Patel U: Bleeding after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: a study of 7-day morbidity after a six-, eight- and 12-core biopsy protocol. BJU Int 2004;94:1014-1020.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.05096.x
12.
Magheli A, Rais-Bahrami S, Carter HB, et al: Subclassification of clinical stage T1 prostate cancer: impact on biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;178:1277-1280; discussion 1280-1281.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.153
13.
Masue N, Deguchi T, Nakano M, et al: Retrospective study of 101 cases with incidental prostate cancer stages T1a and T1b. Int J Urol 2005;12:1045-1049.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2005.01205.x
14.
Melchior S, Hadaschik B, Thüroff S, et al: Outcome of radical prostatectomy for incidental carcinoma of the prostate. BJU Int 2009;103:1478-1481.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08279.x
15.
Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM: Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 2012;61:1019-1024.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050
16.
Kim DK, Kim SJ, Moon HS, et al: The role of TURP in the detection of prostate cancer in BPH patients with previously negative prostate biopsy. Korean J Urol 2010;51:313-317.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2010.51.5.313
17.
Tombal B, De Visccher L, Cosyns JP, et al: Assessing the risk of unsuspected prostate cancer in patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy: a 13-year retrospective study of the incidence and natural history of T1a-T1b prostate cancers. BJU Int 1999;84:1015-1020.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00386.x
18.
Lowe BA, Barry JM: The predictive accuracy of staging transurethral resection of the prostate in the management of stage A cancer of the prostate: a comparative evaluation. J Urol 1990;143:1142-1145.
[PubMed]
19.
Gunia S, May M, Koch S, et al: MUC1 expression in incidental prostate cancer predicts staging and grading on the subsequent radical prostatectomy. Pathol Oncol Res 2010;16:371-375.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-009-9231-4
20.
Jones CU, Hunt D, McGowan DG, et al: Radiotherapy and short-term androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;365:107-118.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1012348
21.
D'Amico AV, Manola J, Loffredo M, et al: 6-month androgen suppression plus radiation therapy vs radiation therapy alone for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;292:821-827.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.7.821
22.
Zelefsky MJ, Pei X, Chou JF, et al: Dose escalation for prostate cancer radiotherapy: predictors of long-term biochemical tumor control and distant metastases-free survival outcomes. Eur Urol 2011;60:1133-1139.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.029
23.
Gontero P, Kirby RS: Nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy: techniques and clinical considerations. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2005;8:133-139.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500781
24.
Lawrence EM, Gnanapragasam VJ, Priest AN, Sala E: The emerging role of diffusion-weighted MRI in prostate cancer management. Nat Rev Urol 2012;9:94-101.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2011.222
25.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
26.
Bloch BN, Genega EM, Costa DN, et al: Prediction of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with high spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced 3-T MRI. Eur Radiol 2012;22:2201-2210.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2475-5
27.
Sharma NL, Papadopoulos A, Lee D, et al: First 500 cases of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from a single UK centre: learning curves of two surgeons. BJU Int 2011;108:739-747.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09941.x
28.
Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K: Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int 2007;99:1109-1112.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06762.x
29.
Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, et al: Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:126-131.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180
30.
Hardie C, Parker C, Norman A, et al: Early outcomes of active surveillance for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2005;95:956-960.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05446.x
31.
Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al: Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008;112:2664-2670.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23502
32.
van As NJ, Norman AR, Thomas K, et al: Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. Eur Urol 2008;54:1297-1305.
[PubMed]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.039
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
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.
2013
You do not currently have access to this content.