Literature DB >> 11435833

Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer.

M Noguchi1, T A Stamey, J E McNeal, C M Yemoto.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Because of the recent increase in nonpalpable prostate cancer (clinical stage T1c) in men, preoperative needle biopsy findings have had an important role for treatment decisions. We examine the correlation among histopathological features of 6 systematic biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens in which 1 investigator reviewed all histological sections.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied a total of 450 men with clinical stage T1c prostate cancer from whom needle biopsies were matched with radical prostatectomy specimens, and selected 222 patient biopsies that were obtained from 6 or more separate regions of the prostate. The pretreatment parameters of serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, number of positive needle biopsies, distribution of positive cores, linear cancer length, and percent Gleason grade 4/5 on the biopsy were determined and compared with histopathological features of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimens. All biopsies and radical prostatectomies were evaluated morphologically at the department of urology.
RESULTS: Of the 222 men the largest cancer was clinically insignificant in 23 (10%), as measured by a cancer volume of less than 0.5 cc. Cancer volume in the prostatectomy specimen was significantly related to all parameters in the biopsy, with the surprising exception of cancer distribution in the positive biopsies. However, all of these correlations with cancer volume were weak, with Pearson's correlation squared (R(2)) multiplied by 100 less than 10%. Unfortunately, tumor grade on the biopsy agreed with the prostatectomy specimen in only 81 of 222 (36%) cases. Grade assessment with needle biopsy underestimated the tumor grade in 102 (46%) cases and overestimated it in 39 (18%). No single parameter in the biopsy was a predictor of tumor significance, as measured by a cancer volume of greater than 0.5 cc. However, the best model to predict a tumor less than 0.5 cc in volume was the combination of a single positive core with cancer length less than 3 mm. that contained no Gleason grade 4/5. The use of PSA or PSA density in combination with needle biopsy findings did not enhance prediction of tumor significance.
CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate a weak and disappointing correlation among all pathological features of 6 systematic biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens. The combination of 1 positive core with cancer length less than 3 mm. that contains no Gleason grade 4/5 is probably the best predictor of prostate cancer less than 0.5 cc in men with nonpalpable tumors, a cancer volume that occurred in only 10% of the 222 (23) men.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11435833

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  44 in total

Review 1.  [Multiparametric MRI, elastography, contrastenhanced TRUS. Are there indications with reliable diagnostic advantages before prostate biopsy?].

Authors:  A Hegele; L Skrobek; R Hofmann; P Olbert
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Knife or needles? A cohort analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy or brachytherapy for men with low- or intermediate-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Authors:  Christine M Fisher; Patricia Troncoso; David A Swanson; Mark F Munsell; Deborah A Kuban; Andrew K Lee; Shih-Fan Yeh; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Brachytherapy       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 2.362

3.  Anti-Oligomannose Antibodies as Potential Serum Biomarkers of Aggressive Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Denong Wang; Laila Dafik; Rosalie Nolley; Wei Huang; Russell D Wolfinger; Lai-Xi Wang; Donna M Peehl
Journal:  Drug Dev Res       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.360

Review 4.  PET/MR in prostate cancer: technical aspects and potential diagnostic value.

Authors:  Michael Souvatzoglou; Matthias Eiber; Axel Martinez-Moeller; Sebastian Fürst; Konstantin Holzapfel; Tobias Maurer; Sibylle Ziegler; Stephan Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger; Ambros J Beer
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 5.  Current trends and new frontiers in focal therapy for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Melissa H Mendez; Daniel Y Joh; Rajan Gupta; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 6.  [Selection criteria for the expected management of localised prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Graefen; G Salomon; E Currlin; C Eichelberg; T Schlomm; H Huland
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 7.  Prostate MRI and transperineal TRUS/MRI fusion biopsy for prostate cancer detection: clinical practice updates.

Authors:  Eugenio Martorana; Giacomo Maria Pirola; Maria Cristina Aisa; Pietro Scialpi; Aldo Di Blasi; Giovanni Saredi; Alfredo D'Andrea; Stefano Signore; Riccardo Grisanti; Michele Scialpi
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2019-07-01

Review 8.  Techniques and Outcomes of MRI-TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  Saturation biopsies for prostate cancer: current uses and future prospects.

Authors:  Nicolas B Delongchamps; Gabriel P Haas
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 10.  Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theo H Van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.