The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SEXTANT AND AN EXTENDED 11-CORE MULTISITE DIRECTED BIOPSY STRATEGY
Abstract
PURPOSE: The 3 tumor locations unsampled by conventional sextant biopsies that have been identified on composite 3-dimensional reconstruction of 180 radical prostatectomy specimens are the anterior transition zone, midline peripheral zone and inferior portions of the anterior horn in the peripheral zone. We evaluated an 11-core multisite directed biopsy scheme incorporating these alternate areas and conventional sextant biopsies in 362 patients from 2 institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients without a prior diagnosis of cancer underwent ultrasound guided 11-core biopsies which included conventional sextant and 3 alternate sites. All specimens were separated for specific location identification. Biopsy was performed in 183 patients at MD Anderson Cancer Center (group 1) and in 179 at Toronto General Hospital (group 2). All group 2 and 54% of group 1 patients (98 of 183) had a prior biopsy negative for cancer. RESULTS: Median prostate specific antigen was higher in group 2 than in group 1 patients (11.5 versus 9.5 ng./ml., p = 0.016). Overall a 33% increase (36 of 110 patients) in cancer detection was observed when biopsy technique included the alternate areas (p = 0.0021). The anterior horn was the most frequently positive biopsy site followed by the transition zone and midline sites. The 11-core technique had significantly better cancer detection rates when digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound were normal, and in men with serum prostate specific antigen between 4.1 and 10 ng./ml. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsies of the alternate sites suggested by our simulation studies are feasible and reproducible. This new strategy significantly enhanced (p = 0.0075) prostate cancer detection compared to conventional sextant biopsies in men undergoing a repeat procedure.
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
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
Punglia, R. S., D'Amico, A. V., Catalona, W. J., Roehl, K. A., & Kuntz, K. M. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa021659 · Cited by 326
Active surveillance for early‐stage prostate cancer: Review of the current literature
Dall'Era, M. A., Cooperberg, M. R., Chan, J. M., Davies, B. J., Albertsen, P. C., Klotz, L. H., Warlick, C. A., Holmberg, L., Bailey, D. E., Wallace, M. E., et al. (2008) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.23373 · Cited by 273
Raab, S. S., & Grzybicki, D. M. (2010) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20068 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- BABAIAN, R. J., TOI, A., KAMOI, K., TRONCOSO, P., SWEET, J., EVANS, R., JOHNSTON, D., & CHEN, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 163
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 152-157
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2068008878
- Cited by
- 456
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.47
- 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: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SEXTANT AND AN EXTENDED 11-CORE MULTISITE DIRECTED BIOPSY STRATEGY. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)67993-1
- The paper
- BABAIAN, R. J., TOI, A., KAMOI, K., TRONCOSO, P., SWEET, J., EVANS, R., JOHNSTON, D., & CHEN, M. (2000). A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SEXTANT AND AN EXTENDED 11-CORE MULTISITE DIRECTED BIOPSY STRATEGY. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)67993-1
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.