B. Djavan et al., Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and4: When should we stop?, J UROL, 166(5), 2001, pp. 1679-1683
Purpose: We evaluated biochemical parameters and pathological features, as
well as biopsy related morbidity of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 2,
3 and 4 in men with total serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) between 4
and 10 ng./ml. These features were compared to those detected on prostate b
iopsy 1.
Materials and Methods: In this prospective European Prostate Cancer Detecti
on study 1,051 men with total PSA between 4 and 10 ng./ml. underwent transr
ectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsy and 2 additional transition zone bio
psies. All patients in whom biopsy samples were negative for prostate cance
r underwent biopsy 2 after 6 weeks. If also negative, biopsies 3 and even 4
were performed at 8-week intervals. Those patients with clinically localiz
ed cancer underwent radical prostatectomy. Pathological and clinical featur
es of patients diagnosed with cancer on either biopsy 1 or 2 and clinically
organ confined disease who agreed to undergo radical prostatectomy were co
mpared.
Results: Cancer detection rates on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 22% (231 of
1,051), 10% (83 of 820), 5% (36 of 737) and 4% (4 of 94), respectively. Ove
rall, of the patients with clinically localized disease, which was 67% of c
ancers detected, 86% underwent radical prostatectomy and 14% opted for watc
hful waiting or radiation therapy. Overall, 58.0%, 60.9%, 86.3% and 100% of
patients had organ confined disease on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectivel
y. Despite statistically significant differences in regard to multifocality
(p = 0.009) and cancer location (p = 0.001), including cancer on biopsy 2
showing a lower rate of multifocality and a more apico-dorsal location, the
re were no differences in regard to stage (p = 0.2), Gleason score (p = 0.3
), percent Gleason grade 4/5 (p = 0.2), serum PSA and patient age between b
iopsies I and 2. However, cancer detected on biopsies 3 and 4 had a signifi
cantly lower Gleason score (p = 0.001 and 0.001), lower rate of grade 4/5 (
p = 0.02), and lower volume (p = 0.001 and 0.001) and stage (p = 0.001), re
spectively.
Conclusions: Despite differences in location and multifocality, pathologica
l and biochemical features of cancer detected on biopsies 1 and 2 were simi
lar, suggesting comparable biological behaviors. Cancer detected on biopsie
s 3 and 4 had a lower grade, stage and volume compared with that on biopsie
s 1 and 2. Morbidity on biopsies 1 and 2 was similar, whereas biopsies 3 an
d 4 had a slightly higher complication rate. Therefore, biopsy 2 in all cas
es of a negative finding on biopsy 1 appears justified. However, biopsies 3
and 4 should only be obtained in select patients with a high suspicion of
cancer and/or poor prognostic factors on biopsy 1 or 2.