COMPUTER MODELING OF PROSTATE BIOPSY: TUMOR SIZE AND LOCATION-NOT CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE-DETERMINE CANCER DETECTION

Abstract

No AccessJournal of UrologyClinical Urology: Original Articles1 Apr 1998COMPUTER MODELING OF PROSTATE BIOPSY: TUMOR SIZE AND LOCATION-NOT CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE-DETERMINE CANCER DETECTION E. DAVID CRAWFORD, DAISAKU HIRANO, PRIYA N. WERAHERA, M. SCOTT LUCIA, EDWARD P. DeANTONI, FIROUZ DANESHGARI, PETER N. BRAWN, V.O. SPEIGHTS, J. SCOTT STEWART, and GARY J. MILLER E. DAVID CRAWFORDE. DAVID CRAWFORD More articles by this author , DAISAKU HIRANODAISAKU HIRANO More articles by this author , PRIYA N. WERAHERAPRIYA N. WERAHERA More articles by this author , M. SCOTT LUCIAM. SCOTT LUCIA More articles by this author , EDWARD P. DeANTONIEDWARD P. DeANTONI More articles by this author , FIROUZ DANESHGARIFIROUZ DANESHGARI More articles by this author , PETER N. BRAWNPETER N. BRAWN More articles by this author , V.O. SPEIGHTSV.O. SPEIGHTS More articles by this author , J. SCOTT STEWARTJ. SCOTT STEWART More articles by this author , and GARY J. MILLERGARY J. MILLER More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63576-6AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Sampling error is an inherent problem of prostate biopsy, and the determination of clinical significance based on biopsy results is problematic. We quantify the dimensions of these problems by computer simulation. Materials and Methods: We constructed 3-dimensional solid computer models of 59 autopsy prostates containing clinically undetected prostate cancer, and performed simulations of the standard prostate biopsy method. Results: Biopsy simulation detected 19 tumors from the 59 prostates, the majority of which were in the most accessible portion of the prostate, the posterior peripheral zone. Using 0.5 cc or greater tumor volume or less than 0.5 cc and Gleason sum 7 or greater as criteria of significance, the model detected 58% (11 of 19) significant tumors and 20% (8 of 40) insignificant tumors. With 0.25 cc or greater tumor volume or less than 0.25 cc and Gleason sum 7 or greater as criteria 15 of 29 significant (52%) and 4 of 30 insignificant (13%) tumors were detected. Among significant tumors defined by either volume criterion there was a statistical difference between detected and undetected tumors in terms of mean tumor volume and mean ratio of tumor volume-to-prostate volume. Among insignificant tumors defined by either criterion there was no such difference. Conclusions: As much as 20 to 40% of currently detected prostate cancer may be histologically insignificant, as 4 of 19 cancers were detected when 0.25 cc was used as volume determinant of clinical significance and 8 of 19 were detected when 0.5 cc volume was used. These tumors are detected randomly. On the other hand, perhaps only one-half to three-fourths of clinically significant prostate cancers are being detected, and then only because the volume and anatomic location make them hard to miss. References 1 : Cancer statistics, 1996. CA1996; 46: 5. Google Scholar 2 : Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. J.A.M.A.1994; 271: 368. Google Scholar 3 : T1c cancer: what is it?. Sem. Urol. Oncol.1995; 13: 173. Google Scholar 4 : Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer1993; 71: 933. Google Scholar 5 : Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. J. Urol.1996; 156: 1059. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Radical prostatectomy for impalpable prostate cancer: The Johns Hopkins experience with tumors found on transurethral resection (stage T1A and T1B) and on needle biopsy (stage T1C). J. Urol.1994; 152: 1721. Link, Google Scholar 7 : The pathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer detectable with current diagnostic tests. J. Urol.1994; 152: 1714. Link, Google Scholar 8 : The definition and preoperative prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. J.A.M.A.1996; 275: 288. Google Scholar 9 : Computer simulation of the probability of detecting low volume carcinoma of the prostate with six random systematic core biopsies. Urology1995; 45: 604. Google Scholar 10 : A 3-D reconstruction algorithm for interpolation and extrapolation of planar cross sectional data. I.E.E.E. Trans. Med. Imag.1995; 14: 765. Google Scholar 11 : Ultrasound detection of prostate cancer in postmortem specimens with histological correlation. J. Urol.1992; 147: 822. Abstract, Google Scholar 12 : Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Urologic Pathology: The Prostate. Edited by . Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger1977: 35. Google Scholar 13 : Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J. Urol.1989; 142: 71. Abstract, Google Scholar 14 SAS Institute, Inc., SAS Campus Drive, Cary, NC 27513. Google Scholar 15 : Morphology of prostate cancer: the effects of multifocality on histological grade, tumor volume and capsule penetration. J. Urol.1994; 152: 1709. Link, Google Scholar 16 : The morphology of small prostatic carcinomas. J. Urol.1935; 33: 224. Abstract, Google Scholar Division of Urology and Department of Pathology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado, Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Scott and White Clinic, Temple, Texas.© 1998 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited bySINGH H, CANTO E, SHARIAT S, KADMON D, MILES B, WHEELER T and SLAWIN K (2018) Improved Detection of Clinically Significant, Curable Prostate Cancer With Systematic 12-Core BiopsyJournal of Urology, VOL. 171, NO. 3, (1089-1092), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2004.EMILIOZZI P, LONGHI S, SCARPONE P, PANSADORO A, DePAULA F and PANSADORO V (2018) THE VALUE OF A SINGLE BIOPSY WITH 12 TRANSPERINEAL CORES FOR DETECTING PROSTATE CANCER IN PATIENTS WITH ELEVATED PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGENJournal of Urology, VOL. 166, NO. 3, (845-850), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2001. (2018) REPLY BY AUTHORSJournal of Urology, VOL. 160, NO. 4, (1372-1372), Online publication date: 1-Oct-1998. Volume 159Issue 4April 1998Page: 1260-1264 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 1998 by American Urological Association, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information E. DAVID CRAWFORD More articles by this author DAISAKU HIRANO More articles by this author PRIYA N. WERAHERA More articles by this author M. SCOTT LUCIA More articles by this author EDWARD P. DeANTONI More articles by this author FIROUZ DANESHGARI More articles by this author PETER N. BRAWN More articles by this author V.O. SPEIGHTS More articles by this author J. SCOTT STEWART More articles by this author GARY J. MILLER More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...