Can prostate biopsies predict suitability for nerve‐sparing radical prostatectomy?

References

• Walsh PC. Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ, eds. Campbell's urology, 7th edn., Vol. III. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 1998: 2565–88.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner MS. Current results and patient selection for nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Semin Urol Oncol 1995; 13: 204–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Catalona WJ. Patient selection for, results of, and impact on tumor resection of potency-sparing radical prosta-tectomy. Urol Clin North Am 1990; 17: 819–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graefen M, Hammerer P, Michl U, Noldus J, Haese A, Henke RP, et al. Incidence of positive surgical margins after biopsy-selected nerve-sparing radical prostatec-tomy. Urology 1998; 51: 437–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huland H, Hubner D, Henke RP. Systematic biopsies and digital rectal examination to identify the nerve-sparing side for radical prostatectomy without risk of positive margin in patients with clinical stage T2, NO prostatic carcinoma. Urology 1994; 44: 211–4.
   Google Scholar
• Sanwick JM, Dalkin BL, Nagle RB. Accuracy of prostate needle biopsy in predicting extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy: application in selecting patients for nerve-sparing surgery. Urology 1998; 52: 814–9.
   Google Scholar
• Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989; 142: 71–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosai J. Guidelines for handling of most common and important surgical specimens. Prostate gland-radical prostatectomy for tumor. In: Rosai J. ed. Ackerman's surgical pathology, 8th edn., Vol. II. St Louis, MO: Mosby, 1996: 2699.
   Google Scholar
• Catalona WJ, Ramos CG, Carvalhal GF. Contemporary results of anatomic radical prostatectomy. CA Cancer J Clin 1999; 49: 282–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lepor H, Gregerman M, Crosby R, Mostofi FK, Walsh PC. Precise localization of the autonomic nerves from the pelvic plexus to the corpora cavemosa: a detailed anatomical study of the adult male pelvis. J Urol 1985; 133: 207–12.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982; 128: 492–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinlan DM, Epstein JI, Carter BS, Walsh PC. Sexual function following radical prostatectomy: influence of preservation of neurovascular bundles. J Urol 1991; 145: 998–1002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen MA, Goldstone L, Lapin S, Wheeler T, Scardino PT. Frequency and location of extracapsular extension and positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 1992; 148: 331–7.
   Google Scholar
• Catalona WJ, Bigg SW. Nerve-sparing prostatectomy: evaluation of results after 250 patients. J Urol 1990; 143: 538–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bostwick DG, Shan A, Qian J, Darson M, Maihle NJ, Jenkins RB, et al. Independent origin of multiple foci of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: comparison with matched foci of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1998; 83: 1995–2002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Partin AW, Walsh PC. Small high grade adenocarcinoma of the prostate in radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens performed for non-palpable disease: pathogenetic and clinical implications. J Urol 1994; 151: 1587–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Clayton JL. Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2002; 60: 264–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson RB, Civantos F, Soloway MS. Positive surgical margins with radical prostatectomy: detailed pathologi-cal analysis and prognosis. Urology 1996; 48: 80–90.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Correlation of pathologic findings with progression after radical retropubic pros-tatectomy. Cancer 1993; 71: 3582–93.
   Google Scholar
• Wahle S, Reznicek M, Fallon B, Platz C, Williams R. Incidence of surgical margin involvement in various forms of radical prostatectomy. Urology 1990; 36: 23–6.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Influence of capsular penetration on progression follow-ing radical prostatectomy: a study of 196 cases with long-term followup. J Urol 1993; 150: 135–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danziger M, Shevchuk M, Antonescu C, Matthews GJ, Fracchia JA. Predictive accuracy of transrectal ultra-sound-guided biopsy: correlations to matched prosta-tectomy specimens. Urology 1997; 49: 863–7.
   Google Scholar
• Iczkowski KA, Bostwick DG. Prostate biopsy interpreta-tion: current concepts, 1999. Urol Clin North Am 1999; 26: 435–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein EA, Zippe CD. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy-defining a new standard [Editorial]. J Urol 2000; 163: 179–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels GF, Jr, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Predictive value of contralateral biopsies in unilaterally palpable prostate cancer. J Urol 1992; 147: 870–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietrick DD, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Core cancer length in ultrasound-guided systematic sextant biopsies: a preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer volume. Urology 1995; 45: 987–92.
   Google Scholar
• Loch T, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Interpretation of bilateral positive biopsies in prostate cancer. J Urol 1995; 154: 1078–83.
   Google Scholar
• Sebo TJ, Bock BJ, Cheville JC, Lohse C, Wollan P. Zincke H. The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000; 163: 174–8.
   Google Scholar
• Tigrani VS, Bhargava V, Shinohara K, Presti JC. Number of positive systematic sextant biopsies predicts surgical margin status at radical prostatectomy. Urology 1999; 54: 689–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durkan GC, Greene DR. Diagnostic dilemmas in detection of prostate cancer in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2000; 3: 13–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Applewhite JC, Matlaga BR, McCullough DL, Hall MC. Transrectal ultrasound and biopsy in the early diagnosis of prostate cancer. Cancer Control 2001; 8: 141–50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997; 157: 199–202.
   Google Scholar
• Djaven B, Remzi M, Schulman CC, Marberger M, Zlotta AR. Repeat prostate biopsy: who, how and when? A review. Eur Urol 2002; 42: 93–103.
   Google Scholar
• Letran JL, Meyer GE, Loberiza FR, Brawer MK. The effect of prostate volume on the yield of needle biopsy. J Urol 1998; 160: 1718–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar