The value of digital rectal examination, computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, prostate-specific antigen, transrectal ultrasonography, and systematic-sextant biopsy in the identification of lymph node-positive patients before radical prostatectomy was analyzed in 103 men who had pelvic lymph node dissection, CT had a sensitivity of only 7% and a specificity of 96% in detecting lymph nodes, whereas magnetic resonance imaging had a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 100%. To evaluate the use of tumor volume in predicting lymph node metastasis, we counted the number of positive core biopsies and compared the results with the incidence of positive lymph nodes. If fewer than 5 positive core biopsies were considered negative for predicting lymph node metastasis, the sensitivity would be 67 % ( 12 of 18), and the specif- ity 94% (50 of 53). To investigate tumor volume more precisely, we measured the extent of tumor volume in every biopsy as a percentage of the total biopsy core and added the percentage for the 6 biopsies. The lowest score was 10% (10% prostatic cancer in 1 of 6 cores), the highest score 580% (4 cores with 100% each and 2 with 90% each). The score was analyzed for sensitivity and specificity in predicting lymph node metastasis. If a score of 280% was used as a cutoff point, the sensitivity was 71% (10 of 14) and the specifity 91% (52 of 57). When we include the grading system by multiplying the percentage of tumor volume with tumor grade, the difference between the lymph node-positive state and lymph node-negative state becomes even more readily apparent. We believe that estimation of tumor volume with systematic-sextant biopsies might help in the prediction or exclusion of lymph node metastasis in most patients with localized prostatic cancer.

Keywords:
Prostatic carcinoma, Transrectal ultrasound, Prostate biopsy
This content is only available via PDF.
1992
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.