Saturation biopsy improves preoperative Gleason scoring of prostate cancer

We evaluated the differences between conventional needle biopsy (CB) and saturation biopsy (SB) techniques with regard to the prediction of Gleason score, tumor stage, and insignificant prostate cancer. Data from a total number of 240 patients were analyzed. The main group, consisting of 185 patients, was diagnosed according to a saturation prostate needle biopsy protocol (SB), by which more than 12 cores were taken per biopsy. The control group was diagnosed using CB, by which 12 or less than 12 cores were taken per biopsy ( n=55). In the main group, the Gleason score of the biopsy was confirmed in 19.5%, in the control group in 23.5% according to the prostatectomy specimen ( p=0.50). Upgrading after the operation was found in 56.7% in the main group and in 60% in the control group ( p=0.24). Downgrading after the operation was found in 23.9% in the main group and in 16.3% in the control group ( p=0.24). If the Gleason score of the postoperative specimens differed by only one point from the biopsy, we considered this a minor deviation. In the main group, 59% of the carcinomas were preoperatively classified correctly or revealed minor deviation in Gleason scores. In contrast, only 47% of the carcinomas in the control group were assessed correctly or with minor deviation in Gleason scores. Thus, the main group demonstrated a better rate of preoperative prediction in tumor grading assessed by Gleason score ( p=0.05). In addition, the Gleason scores of both protocols were assigned to three groups (Gleason 7), and the group changes from the biopsy to the prostatectomy specimen were found to be significantly more frequent in the CB group ( p=0.04). There was no significant difference between the two types of biopsy techniques regarding tumor stage or the detection of insignificant carcinomas. The advantage of the extensive prostate needle biopsy technique (SB) is a better preoperative prediction of the Gleason score as well as the risk groups with Gleason scores 7. Both techniques fail to detect insignificant prostate cancer.