Advertisement
Journal of Clinical Oncology  
Search for:
Limit by:
  Browse by Subject or Issue
Home Search or Browse JCO My JCO Subscriptions Customer Service Site Map

Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.3497 on August 3 2009

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 27, No 26 (September 10), 2009: pp. 4321-4326
© 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Save to my personal folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRights & Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Onik, G.
Right arrow Articles by Bostwick, D. G.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Onik, G.
Right arrow Articles by Bostwick, D. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Genitourinary Cancer

Three-Dimensional Prostate Mapping Biopsy Has a Potentially Significant Impact on Prostate Cancer Management

Gary Onik, Matthew Miessau, David G. Bostwick

From the Department of Radiology, Florida Hospital Celebration Health, Celebration; and Bostwick Laboratories, Orlando, FL.

Corresponding author: Gary Onik, MD, Department of Radiology, 400 Celebration Pl, Celebration Health/Florida, Celebration FL 34747; e-mail: onikcryo{at}aol.com.

Purpose To compare a new staging, three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy (3D-PMB) method with traditional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy and assess its possible impact on patient management.

Patients and Methods One hundred eighty patients with unilateral cancer on TRUS biopsy, who were considering conservative management, underwent restaging with 3D-PMB. The 3D-PMB was carried out transperineally using a brachytherapy grid under TRUS guidance. Biopsies were taken every 5 mm throughout the volume of the prostate, and labeling of the specimen coordinates allowed accurate reconstruction of the location and extent of a patient's cancer.

Results 3D-PMB obtained a median of 50 cores (standard deviation, ± 20.61). One hundred ten patients (61.1%) were positive bilaterally, and 41 patients (22.7%) had Gleason scores increased to 7 or higher. Thirty-six patients had negative results on 3D-PMB. Complications of 3D-PMB were self-limited and included 14 patients (7.7%) who required short-term indwelling catheter drainage and two patients with hematuria, one of whom required overnight bladder irrigation.

Conclusion 3D-PMB is a transperineal biopsy that can be safely used to accurately stage prostate cancer patients. At the present time, when patient management is increasingly based on the extent and characteristics of prostate cancer, 3D-PMB could have a profound effect on patient management.

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




About
JCO
 Editorial
Roster
 Advertising
Information
 Librarians &
Institutions
 Rights &
Permissions
 PDA Services

Copyright © 2009 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
Terms and Conditions of Use
  HighWire Press HighWire Press™ assists in the publication of JCO Online