Korean J Urol.  2009 Dec;50(12):1168-1173.

The Efficacy of Prostate Biopsy by Use of the Vienna Nomogram

• Seo WI
• Choi SH
• Jung JI

Abstract

PURPOSE
No standard number of cores is obtained with a prostate needle biopsy. Routinely, we obtain 10 core biopsies but do not consider prostate volume or patient age. Consequently, we evaluated the clinical efficacy of prostate biopsy when taking into account prostate volume and patient age by use of the Vienna nomogram to suggest the proper number of cores.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate needle biopsies were performed in 326 patients between November 2006 and June 2009. Group A (10 cores biopsy) was 131 patients. Group B (biopsy using Vienna nomogram) was 134 patients. We compared the cancer detection rate between the two groups, especially according to age and prostate volume. The chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
The overall cancer detection rates in groups A and B were 33.6% and 32.1%, respectively. In older patients (age> or =60 years), group B had a higher detection rate than did group A (37.0% vs. 35.6%). For patients with a small prostate (<30 g), group B had a significantly higher detection rate than did group A (62.1% vs. 30.4%, p=0.023).
CONCLUSIONS
There was no significant difference in the overall cancer detection rate. However, in patients with a small prostate and in older patients, the Vienna nomogram was more effective than a 10-core biopsy. The Vienna nomogram could help to establish guidelines for prostate biopsy in Korea that take into account the prostate volume and the age of the patient. It could also help urologists to reduce unnecessary cores when diagnosing prostate cancer in the elderly population and in those with small prostates.

Keyword

Prostatic neoplasms; Needle biopsy; Nomograms

MeSH Terms

Aged
Biopsy
Biopsy, Needle
Humans
Korea
Nomograms
Prostate
Prostatic Neoplasms

Reference

1. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989. 142:71–74.

2. Catalona WJ, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Flanigan RC, et al. Selection of optimal prostate specific antigen cutoffs for early detection of prostate cancer: receiver operating characteristic curves. J Urol. 1994. 152:2037–2042.

3. Stroumbakis N, Cookson MS, Reuter VE, Fair WR. Clinical significance of repeat sextant biopsies in prostate cancer patients. Urology. 1997. 49:3A Suppl. 113–118.

4. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sauvageot J, Carter HB. Use of repeat sextant and transition zone biopsies for assessing extent of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1997. 158:1886–1890.

5. 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. 1998. 159:471–475.

6. 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. 2000. 163:163–166.

7. Remzi M, Fong YK, Dobrovits M, Anagnostou T, Seitz C, Waldert M, et al. The Vienna nomogram: validation of a novel biopsy strategy defining the optimal number of cores based on patient age and total prostate volume. J Urol. 2005. 174:1256–1260.

8. Lerner SE, Seay TM, Blute ML, Bergstralh EJ, Barrett D, Zincke H. Prostate specific antigen detected prostate cancer (clinical stage T1c): an interim analysis. J Urol. 1996. 155:821–826.

9. Stamey TA. Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology. 1995. 45:2–12.

10. Terris MK, Wallen EM, Stamey TA. Comparison of mid-lobe versus lateral systematic sextant biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer. Urol Int. 1997. 59:239–242.

11. Moon KH, Cheon SH, Kim CS. Systematic 10-site prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. Korean J Urol. 2000. 41:1178–1182.

12. Yeo BG, Lee E, Byun SS. Peripheral 10 sites prostate biopsy: Is it really effective? Korean J Urol. 2003. 44:851–854.

13. Lee SB, Kim CS, Ahn H. Comparative analysis of sextant and extended prostate biopsy. Korean J Urol. 2004. 45:524–529.

14. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE, Ornstein DK, Catalona WJ. A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol. 2000. 164:388–392.

15. Remzi M, Djavan B, Wammack R, Momeni M, Seitz C, Erne B, et al. Can total and transition zone volume of the prostate determine whether to perform a repeat biopsy? Urology. 2003. 61:161–166.

16. Ung JO, San Francisco IF, Regan MM, DeWolf WC, Olumi AF. The relationship of prostate gland volume to extended needle biopsy on prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2003. 169:130–135.

17. Rietbergen JB, Kruger AE, Hoedemaeker RF, Bangma CH, Kirkels WJ, Schröder FH. Repeat screening for prostate cancer after 1-year followup in 984 biopsied men: clinical and pathological features of detected cancer. J Urol. 1998. 160:2121–2125.

18. Jung JY, Jeong H, Chung J, Lee SB, Lee SE, Kim SH. The outcome of TRUS-guided sextant biopsy according to prostate volume. Korean J Urol. 2000. 41:505–511.

19. Vashi AR, Wojno KJ, Gillespie B, Oesterling JE. A model for the number of cores per prostate biopsy based on patient age and prostate gland volume. J Urol. 1998. 159:920–924.

20. Jung BC, Kim TH, Jeong SJ, Kwak C, Lee SE. The clinical usefulness of the prostate-specific antigen, prostate-specific antigen density, digital rectal examination, and transrectal ultrasonography in the screening test of prostate cancer in Koreans. Korean J Urol. 2002. 43:14–18.