Premium
A comparison between digitally‐guided fine needle aspiration and ultrasound‐guided transperineal core needle biopsy of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer
Author(s) -
ENGELSTEIN D.,
MUKAMEL E.,
CYTRON S.,
KONICHEZKY M.,
SUTZKI S.,
VADIO C. SER
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
british journal of urology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 0007-1331
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1994.tb16588.x
Subject(s) - medicine , prostate cancer , prostate , rectal examination , biopsy , radiology , fine needle aspiration , prostate biopsy , ultrasound , cancer , core biopsy , breast cancer
Objective To prospectively examine the accuracy of fine needle aspiration (FNA) for the detection of prostate cancer. Ultrasound‐guided core needle biopsy of the prostate was used as the standard to which the FNA results were compared. Patients and methods One‐hundred patients who had been referred for urological evaluation were suspected of having prostate cancer on the basis of digital rectal examination (DRE) and/or transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). All were further evaluated by digitally guided transrectal FNA and by TRUS‐guided transperineal core needle biopsy. Results Prostate cancer was identified in 54 patients by core needle biopsy and in 45 by FNA. The sensitivity of FNA was 81% and both specificity and positive predictive value were 98%. Conclusion FNA is easily performed, has negligible morbidity and offers prompt results. These data suggest that FNA is a reasonable initial diagnostic procedure for the detection of prostate cancer. Core needle biopsy may be reserved for patients with negative cytology who are clinically suspected of having prostate cancer. In selected patients, FNA may be used as an alternative to core needle biopsy for diagnosis, treatment planning and follow‐up.