Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

Postradical prostatectomy TRUS-guided anastomotic biopsy. Where do we stand today?

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 7, pages 302–310 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

The issue of performing tissue sampling from the vesicourethral anastomotic area postradical prostatectomy (transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy) after radical surgical treatment of local disease has failed, still remains controversial. We review a selection of articles that evaluate this procedure as well as newer diagnostic modalities and we discuss how this technique may have a position in our treatment dilemmas in cases with biochemical failure of undetermined origin.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lepor H . Selecting candidates for radical prostatectomy. In: Rous SN, (ed). Urology Annual. Appleton and Lange: Norwalk, CT, 1997; p 1.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Teillac P et al. Treatment of localized disease. In: Murphy G, Khoury S, Partin A, Denis L (eds). Prostate Cancer. Second International Consultation on Prostate Cancer, June 1999, Paris, 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pound CR, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC . Prostate specific antigen after anatomic radical prostatectomy. Patterns of recurrence and cancer control. Urol Clin N Am 1997; 24: 395–406.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Zincke H et al. Long-term (15 years) results after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized (stage T2c or lower) prostate cancer. J Urol 1994; 152: 1850–1857.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT . Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1499–1507.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Roberts WW et al. Contemporary identification of patients at high risk of early prostate cancer recurrence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2001; 57: 1033–1037.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Slater JD et al. Conformal proton therapy for early stage prostate cancer. Urology 1999; 53: 978.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC . Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multi-variate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996; 20: 286–292.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. D' Amico AV et al. The combination of preoperative prostate specific antigen and postoperative pathological findings to predict prostate specific antigen outcome in clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 160: 2096–2101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kupelian P et al. External beam radiotherapy versus radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer: Therapeutic implications of stratification by pre-treatment PSA levels and biopsy Gleason scores. Cancer J Sci Am 1997; 3: 78–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shekarriz B et al. Vesicourethral anastomosis biopsy after radical prostatectomy: predictive value of prostate specific antigen and pathologic stage. Urology 1999; 54: 1044–1048.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lange PH et al. The value of serum prostate specific antigen determinations before and after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1989; 141: 873–879.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jhaveri FM, Zippe CD, Klein EA, Kupelian PA . Biochemical failure does not predict overall survival after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: 10-year results. Urology 1999; 54: 884–890.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Feneley MR, Partin AW . PSA and radical prostatectomy. In: Brawer M (ed). Prostate Specific Antigen. M. Dekker Editions: New York, Basel, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Partin AW et al. Serum PSA after anatomical radical prostatectomy. The Johns Hopkins experience after 10 years. Urol Clin N Am 1993; 20: 713–725.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldrath DE, Messing EM . Prostate specific antigen: not detectable despite tumor progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1989; 142: 1082–1084.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Takayama TK et al. Recurrent prostate cancer despite undetectable prostate specific antigen. J Urol 1992; 148: 1541–1542.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Goldenberg SL, Carter M, Dashefsky S, Cooperberg PL . Sonographic characteristics of the urethrovesical anastomosis in the early post-radical prostatectomy patient. J Urol 1992; 147: 1307–1309.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Parra RO, Wolf RM, Huben RP . The use of transrectal ultrasound in the detection and evaluation of local pelvic recurrences after a radical urological pelvic operation. J Urol 1990; 144: 707–709.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wasserman NF et al. Transrectal US in evaluation of patients after radical prostatectomy. Part I. Normal postoperative anatomy. Radiology 1992; 185: 361–366.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sudakoff GS et al. Color Doppler imaging and transrectal sonography of the prostatic fossa after radical prostatectomy: early experience. Am J Radiat 1996; 167: 883–888.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wasserman NF et al. Transrectal US in evaluation of patients after radical prostatectomy. Part II. Transrectal US and biopsy findings in the presence of residual and early recurrent prostatic cancer. Radiology 1992; 185: 367–372.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Resnick MI . Editorial comment. J Urol 1990; 144: 709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Salomon C et al. Radical prostatectomy: transrectal sonographic evaluation to assess local recurrence. Radiology 1993; 189: 713–719.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Foster LS et al. The value of prostate specific antigen and transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy in detecting prostatic fossa recurrences following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1993; 149: 1024–1028.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wieder JA, Soloway MS . Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 160: 299–315.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Richie JP . Management of patients with positive surgical margins following radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin N Am 1994; 21: 717.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Stamey TA et al. Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: importance of the apical dissection. J Urol 1990; 143: 1166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Eggleston JC, Walsh PC . Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: pathological findings in the first 100 cases. J Urol 1985; 134: 1146.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Voges GE et al. Morphologic analysis of surgical margins with positive findings in prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1992; 69: 520.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lepor H et al. Precise localization of the autonomic nerves from the pelvic plexus to the corpora cavernosa: a detailed anatomical study of the adult male pelvis. J Urol 1985; 133: 207.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Connolly JA, Shinohara K, Presti JC, Carroll PR . Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: characteristics in size, location and relationship to prostate-specific antigen and surgical margins. Urology 1996; 47: 225–231.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Saleem MD, Sanders H, El Naser MA, El-Galley R . Factors predicting cancer detection in biopsy of the prostate fossa after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1998; 51 (2): 283–286.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fowler Jr JE, Brooks J, Prabhakar P, Seaver LE . Variable histology of anastomotic biopsies with detectable prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1995; 153: 1011–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Partin AW et al. Evaluation of serum prostate specific-antigen velocity after radical prostatectomy to distinguish local recurrence from distant metastases. Urology 1994; 43: 649–659.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lightner DJ, Lange PH, Reddy PK, Moore L . Prostate specific antigen and local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1990; 144: 921.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Van den Ouden D, Bentvelsen FM, Boeve ER, Schroder FH . Positive margins after radical prostatectomy: correlation with local recurrence and distant progression. Br J Urol 1993; 72: 489–494.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Abi-Aad AS, MacFarlane MT, Stein A, deKernion JB . Detection of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy by prostate specific antigen and transrectal ultrasound. J Urol 1992; 141: 952–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kapoor DA, Wasserman NF, Zhang G, Reddy PK . Value of transrectal ultrasound in identifying local disease after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1993; 41: 594–597.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Leventis AK, Shariat SF, Slawin KM . Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy: correlation of US features with prostatic fossa biopsy findings. Radiology 2001; 219: 432–439.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Ripple MG, Potter SR, Partin AW, Epstein JI . Needle biopsy of recurrent adenocarcinoma of the prostate after radical prostatectomy. Mod Pathol (United States Can Acad Pathol) 2000; 13: 521–527.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Remzi M et al. Color Doppler Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS), time to recurrence, and PSA density do replace biopsies in detecting local recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003; 169 (Suppl): 299.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kramer S et al. Sensitivity of computed tomography in detecting local recurrence of prostatic carcinoma following radical prostatectomy. Br J Radiat 1997; 70: 995–999.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hoh CK et al. Positron emission tomography in urological oncology. J Urol 1998; 159: 347–356.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Silverman JM, Krebs TL . MR imaging evaluation with a transrectal surface coil of local recurrence of prostatic cancer in men who have undergone radical prostatectomy. AJR 1997; 168: 379–385.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Anagnostou T et al. Magnetic resonance using body coil and enhanced spin echo sequence imaging in evaluating local recurrence following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2003; 2: 22 (78).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kahn D et al. 111) Indium-capromab pendetide in the evaluation of patients with residual or recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1998; 159: 2041–2046.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Wood DP, Peretsman SJ, Seay TM . Incidence of benign and malignant prostate tissue in biopsies of the bladder neck after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1995; 154: 1443–1446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Boccon-Gibod L et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the perineal approach increases the risk of surgically induced positive margins and capsular incisions. J Urol 1998; 160: 1383–1385.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Lepor H, Chan S, Melamed J . The role of bladder neck biopsy in men undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy with preservation of the bladder neck. J Urol 1998; 160: 2435–2439.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Shah O et al. Benign prostatic glands at surgical margins of radical prostatectomy specimens: frequency and associated risk factors. Urology 2000; 56: 721–725.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Tongco WP, Wehner MS, Basler JW . Does urethral-sparing prostatectomy risk residual prostate cancer? Urology 2001; 57: 495–498.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Djavan B et al. Benign prostatic glands in the surgical margin of radical retropubic prostatectomies: redefining PSA nadir. J Urol 2000; 163 (Suppl): 142.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Koppie TM et al. Is anastomotic biopsy necessary before radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy? J Urol 2001; 166: 111–115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Athens General Hospital ‘G. Gennimatas’, Athens, Greece

    T Anagnostou & K Doumas

  2. Department of Urology, University of Vienna, Austria

    M Remzi & B Djavan

Authors
  1. T Anagnostou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K Doumas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M Remzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B Djavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B Djavan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anagnostou, T., Doumas, K., Remzi, M. et al. Postradical prostatectomy TRUS-guided anastomotic biopsy. Where do we stand today?. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 7, 302–310 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500735

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500735

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links