Literature DB >> 11474294

Predicting cancer following a diagnosis of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on needle biopsy: data on men with more than one follow-up biopsy.

J D Kronz1, C H Allan, A A Shaikh, J I Epstein.   

Abstract

Most studies on the risk of cancer after high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) on biopsy have been small (fewer than 100 men), have not analyzed in detail if histologic features can predict cancer, and have not assessed the risk of cancer with multiple repeat biopsies. We analyzed 245 men in whom the only abnormal finding on the initial biopsy was high-grade PIN and who had at least one follow-up biopsy. Repeat biopsy identified cancer in 32.2% of men. If only one follow-up biopsy had been performed on the 245 men, only 24.5% of men would have been found to have cancer. The only independent histologic predictor of a cancer diagnosis was the number of cores with high-grade PIN; risk of cancer: 30.2% with 1 or 2 cores, 40% with 3 cores, and 75% with >3 cores. The following did not predict cancer: number of high-grade PIN glands, maximum percentage of gland involved by high-grade PIN, nucleolar prominence, percentage of cells with prominent nucleoli, pattern of high-grade PIN (flat, tufting, micropapillary, cribriform), marked pleomorphism, digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound findings, family history of prostate cancer, serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) at time of high-grade PIN diagnosis, and rate of change of serum PSA. Eighty-one (33%) men had more than one follow-up biopsy; in these cases the following findings on the original high-grade PIN biopsy predicted cancer: the presence of mitoses, the number of positive cores, predominant micropapillary and cribriform high-grade PIN, and very large prominent nucleoli. Of 81 men with more than one follow-up biopsy, if the first repeat biopsy were benign, high-grade PIN, or atypical, the eventual cancer rate was 10%, 25.9%, and 57.1%, respectively (p = 0.002). Of 15 men with more than two repeat biopsies, only two (13.3%) had cancer. In summary, approximately one third of men with high-grade PIN on biopsy have cancer on follow-up. If cancer is not found on the first two follow-up biopsies, it will unlikely be found. Although clinical findings at the time of diagnosis of high-grade PIN are not useful to predict who might have cancer, histologic findings may help identify who needs additional biopsies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11474294     DOI: 10.1097/00000478-200108000-00014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  27 in total

Review 1.  Histopathology reporting of prostate needle biopsies. 2005 update.

Authors:  Rodolfo Montironi; Remigio Vela Navarrete; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Gregor Mikuz; Aldo V Bono
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2006-04-22       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Risk factors for prostate cancer detection after a negative biopsy: a novel multivariable longitudinal approach.

Authors:  Peter H Gann; Angela Fought; Ryan Deaton; William J Catalona; Edward Vonesh
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on a prostate biopsy-what does it mean?

Authors:  Alan W Partin
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2002

4.  High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  David G Bostwick; Lina Liu; Michael K Brawer; Junqi Qian
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2004

5.  20-year-old male with recurrent right flank pain.

Authors:  Ojas Shah; Brian R Matlaga; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2003

6.  Is repeat biopsy for isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia necessary?

Authors:  Arnold I Chin; Dhiren S Dave; Jacob Rajfer
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2007

7.  Characterization of TMPRSS2-ERG fusion high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and potential clinical implications.

Authors:  Juan-Miguel Mosquera; Sven Perner; Elizabeth M Genega; Martin Sanda; Matthias D Hofer; Kirsten D Mertz; Pamela L Paris; Jeff Simko; Tarek A Bismar; Gustavo Ayala; Rajal B Shah; Massimo Loda; Mark A Rubin
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-06-01       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  Opposing effects of androgen deprivation and targeted therapy on prostate cancer prevention.

Authors:  Shidong Jia; Xueliang Gao; Sang Hyun Lee; Sauveur-Michel Maira; Xiaoqiu Wu; Edward C Stack; Sabina Signoretti; Massimo Loda; Jean J Zhao; Thomas M Roberts
Journal:  Cancer Discov       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 39.397

9.  Accuracy analysis in MRI-guided robotic prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Helen Xu; Andras Lasso; Peter Guion; Axel Krieger; Aradhana Kaushal; Anurag K Singh; Peter A Pinto; Jonathan Coleman; Robert L Grubb; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Cynthia Menard; Louis L Whitcomb; Gabor Fichtinger
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 10.  Precursor lesions to prostatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2008-12-02       Impact factor: 4.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.