OBJECTIVES: To compare the @entity5 detection of two consecutive sets of prostate biopsies using either the sextant or the 10-core technique. METHODS: Ninety-one specimens after radical prostatectomy were used and consecutive sets of biopsies were performed ex vivo on each prostate after the operation. The sextant biopsies were taken paramedian and midlobular, three per side. For the 10-core biopsies, two cores per side from the lateral areas of the prostate were added. We developed a realistic simulation of a transrectal sonographic biopsy procedure. RESULTS: In the first set of sextant biopsies, 55 @entity263 (60.4%) were found; in the second set, 13 additional @entity5 were detected. Two consecutive sets of sextant biopsies thus found 68 @entity5 (74.7%). Using one 10-core biopsy led to @entity5 detection in 71 of the prostates (78%). A second 10-core biopsy revealed 11 additional @entity5 , for a cumulative @entity5 detection rate of 90.1%. We found that 9 (9.9%) of all the @entity5 were not diagnosed by two consecutive sets of this extended biopsy protocol. Eight of these @entity5 (88.9%) were clinically significant as determined by a @entity5 volume larger than 0.5 cm(3). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 10-core protocol is far superior to the commonly used sextant protocol, a significant number of @entity263 can still be found on a second similar set of prostate biopsies. Even after two consecutive sets of 10-core biopsies, approximately 10% of the @entity263 remained undetected. Most of them were clinically significant.

XXXX detection with two sets of ten-core compared with two sets of sextant biopsies.

@entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumor', 'cancers', 'cancer', 'tumors'] @entity263 :: ('MESH:D011471', 'Disease') :: ['prostate cancers', 'prostate tumors']
@entity263 :: (MESH:D011471,Disease) :: ['Prostate cancer']
