Diagnostic Value of Systematic Biopsy Methods in the Investigation of Prostate Cancer

A Systematic Review

Published in: The Journal of Urology, v. 175, no. 5, May 2006, p. 1605-1612

Posted on RAND.org on July 26, 2016

by Klaus Eichler, Susanne Hempel, Jennifer Wilby, Lindsey Myers, Lucas M. Bachmann, Jos Kleijnen

Read More

Access further information on this document at The Journal of Urology

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

PURPOSE: Several new extended prostate biopsy schemes (greater than 6 cores) have been proposed. We compared the cancer detection rates and complications of different extended prostate biopsy schemes for diagnostic evaluation in men scheduled for biopsy to identify the optimal scheme. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a systematic review we searched 13 electronic databases, screened relevant urological journals and the reference lists of included studies, and contacted experts. We included studies that compared different systematic prostate biopsy methods using sequential sampling or a randomized design in men scheduled for biopsy due to suspected prostate cancer. We pooled data using a random effects model when appropriate. RESULTS: We analyzed 87 studies with a total of 20,698 patients. We pooled data from 68 studies comparing a total of 94 extended schemes with the standard sextant scheme. An increasing number of cores were significantly associated with the cancer yield. Laterally directed cores increased the yield significantly (p = 0.003), whereas centrally directed cores did not. Schemes with 12 cores that took additional laterally directed cores detected 31% more cancers (95% CI 25 to 37) than the sextant scheme. Schemes with 18 to 24 cores did not detect significantly more cancers. Adverse events for schemes up to 12 cores were similar to those for the sextant pattern. Adverse event reporting was poor for schemes with 18 to 24 cores. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate biopsy schemes consisting of 12 cores that add laterally directed cores to the standard sextant scheme strike the balance between the cancer detection rate and adverse events. Taking more than 12 cores added no significant benefit.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.