This Medscape article concerns HIFU (Hi intensity focused Ultrasound) and its use by a physician trying to get around the standard of care of prostate biopsy prior to any definitive PC treatment. (in addition to potential fraud) The MD may not follow proper standards, and apparently has written the book, "Men at Risk: The Dirty Little Secret That Prostate Biopsies Really Do Spread Prostate Cancer Cells" which I have not seen, concerning the possibility of prostate biopsy related spread of PCA. I do not endorse his book, or treatment without proven histologic diagnosis, but remain curious about the issue. Only wish research on using non-invasive MRI or PET to diagnose and grade PCA would evolve faster. This would remove the process of invasive biopsy as a potential cause of metastatic disease occurring in close proximity to the diagnostic biopsy or invasive treatment.
Written by
TWTJr
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
It will always be impossible to Gleason grade PC without histological analysis. spread of PC with a biopsy does not seem to be an issue for most men. It is doubtful that cells with low grade can live outside the prostatic environment. But there have been isolated cases of spread along the needle track.
Studies are being performed to provide non-invasive imaging-based grading that provide the same information (high grade or low grade, predictive of future treatment failure). I am not yet aware of the outcomes of these imaging studies but this is the type of approach that I believe will be most beneficial if they prove useful. PCA could be graded by a non-invasive Gleason proxy, and treatment plan made with a broad inclusion of multiple modalities without potential harm to the patient. Would not that be a superior method than 12-18 trans-rectal core bx? (a barbaric type of biopsy)
Studies like that can only show correlation. Gleason score evaluates tissue architecture, which can never be seen with imaging - the voxel size is way too high. I would never be comfortable assuming that a PIRADS 5 is high grade or a PIRADS 1 isn't, for example. Perhaps someday genomic changes will be found to cause Gleason grade, but we are far from being able to say that without a biopsy.
Yes, I agree that research if far away. But it should be the goal. Ideally, it should be the goal for diagnosis, grading and staging most diseases, malignant or otherwise. Medicine has come a long way since I started, and changing fairly rapidly.
And with that I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
I do wish it were possible to more widely adopt transperineal biopsies. Do you know if there are any disadvantages (diagnostically) compared to TRUS-biopsies?
Bx related tract metastasis, lymphatic vessel to lymph node and venous related metastasis (to bone via Batson's plexus and pulmonary metastasis all occur, are poorly recognized, often recognized on a delayed basis, and most difficult to study. With the tens of thousands of biopsies being done yearly, without a control group for comparison, the true incidence of biopsy related spread of all grades of PCA cannot be not known, and will remain so until a properly designed longitudinal study followed for at least 10 years is performed.
My last general anatomy course was about 45 years ago, so this may be beyond me, but...how can they determine that (for example) a bony metastasis was from the biopsy?
Not possible by direct exam, or with present standards of care. Only by comparing statistics of the natural course of disease events of two groups of patients. One group has the traditional biopsy, another group has no biopsy or surgical intervention. If the invasive biopsy group has a higher incidence of bone or other metastasis, with other pertinent varaibles (Gleason score or proxy test for such) controlled, then the logical reason would be due to the invasive biopsy or treatment.
Should note that until such time that a non-invasive process (such as MRI, blood test, or genomics) is developed that would allow the diagnosis and grading of prostate cancer using non-invasive techniques is developed, this type of study cannot be performed. Research is on going. I believe that our sons will benefit, and the diagnosis and treatment of this wicked disease will, like many other diseases, be substantially different. (Hopefully less invasive and more effective)
Trans-perineal biopsys are technically more difficult, and additonally, there is an extensive perineal nerve plexus that can, and does, become injured resulting in post biopsy pain in a few. I do not know the exact incidence, but the pain can be very debilitating and chronic in some.
Gotta watch who you deal with...reputable organizations .....MD's with a good reputation... My question is whether people who undergo prostate biopsy and end up with E coli sepsis are at higher risk for metastatic prostate cancer ??
No, E.Coli sepsis occurs about in 2% of transrectal biopsies, but I know of no data that suggests a correlation between biopsy related sepsis and subsequent metastatic disease.
No, I was not aware of any any studies/correlation of data and my question would be regarding high gleason scores from biopsy....sepsis lowers ability to make immune response making one more susceptible....
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Insulin Enhances Migration and Invasion in PCa.
An Update On My Father's PCa - Test Results/Treatment Plan
Can someone help me with this Brain Biopsy, told have PCa primary and mets to brain???
Low PSA (Less than 2 ng/ml) but high Gleason (9) cancer which spread to liver
