The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Saturation Technique Does Not Improve Cancer Detection as an Initial Prostate Biopsy Strategy
Abstract
PURPOSE: We reported on the results of a sequential cohort study comparing office based saturation prostate biopsy to traditional 10-core sampling as an initial biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on improved cancer detection of office based saturation prostate biopsy repeat biopsy, we adopted the technique as an initial biopsy strategy to improve cancer detection. Two surgeons performed 24-core saturation prostate biopsies in 139 patients undergoing initial biopsy under periprostatic local anesthesia. Indication for biopsy was an increased PSA of 2.5 ng/dl or greater in all patients. Results were compared to those of 87 patients who had previously undergone 10-core initial biopsies. RESULTS: Cancer was detected in 62 of 139 patients (44.6%) who underwent saturation biopsy and in 45 of 87 patients (51.7%) who underwent 10-core biopsy (p >0.9). Breakdown by PSA level failed to show benefit to the saturation technique for any degree PSA increase. Men with PSA 2.5 to 9.9 ng/dl were found to have cancer in 53 of 122 (43.4%) saturation biopsies and 26 of 58 (44.8%) 10-core biopsies. Complications included 3 cases of prostatitis in each group. Rectal bleeding was troublesome enough to require evaluation only in 3 men in the saturation group and 1 in the 10-core group. CONCLUSIONS: Although saturation prostate biopsy improves cancer detection in men with suspicion of cancer following a negative biopsy, it does not appear to offer benefit as an initial biopsy technique. These findings suggest that further efforts at extended biopsy strategies beyond 10 to 12 cores are not appropriate as an initial biopsy strategy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Schoots, I. G., Roobol, M. J., Nieboer, D., Bangma, C. H., Steyerberg, E. W., & Hunink, M. G. M. (2015) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037 · Cited by 687
Pinto, P. A., Chung, P. H., Rastinehad, A. R., Baccala, A. A., Kruecker, J., Benjamin, C. J., Xu, S., Yan, P., Kadoury, S., Chua, C., et al. (2011) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.078 · Cited by 450
Raab, S. S., & Grzybicki, D. M. (2010) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20068 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, J. S., Patel, A., Schoenfield, L., Rabets, J. C., Zippe, C. D., & Magi-Galluzzi, C.
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 175
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 485-488
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2065261766
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Saturation Technique Does Not Improve Cancer Detection as an Initial Prostate Biopsy Strategy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00211-9
- The paper
- Jones, J. S., Patel, A., Schoenfield, L., Rabets, J. C., Zippe, C. D., & Magi-Galluzzi, C. (2006). Saturation Technique Does Not Improve Cancer Detection as an Initial Prostate Biopsy Strategy. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00211-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.