Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 210

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Saturation Technique Does Not Improve Cancer Detection as an Initial Prostate Biopsy Strategy

Jones, J. Stephen, Patel, Amit, Schoenfield, Lynn, Rabets, John C., Zippe, Craig D., Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina·2006·Journal of Urology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00211-9

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 210

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.