Literature DB >> 15351590

Relating biopsy and clinical variables to radical prostatectomy findings: can insignificant and advanced prostate cancer be predicted in a screening population?

Jason W Anast1, Gerald L Andriole, Tarek A Bismar, Yan Yan, Peter A Humphrey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the capacity of several clinical and needle biopsy pathologic parameters to predict insignificant and advanced prostate carcinoma (CaP) in radical prostatectomy tissue from men enrolled in a prostate-specific antigen screening program.
METHODS: We captured multiple clinical variables and measures of needle biopsy tumor extent from 152 men with Stage T1c CaP with a mean of six biopsy cores who were treated with radical prostatectomy. Insignificant CaP was defined as a tumor volume of less than 0.5 cm(3) that was organ confined with a Gleason score less than 7. Advanced CaP was defined by a formula that combined the Gleason score, pathologic stage, and margin status. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were used to identify variables predictive of either insignificant or advanced CaP.
RESULTS: Of the cases of CaP, 25.7% were pathologically insignificant, and 14.5% were pathologically advanced. The best model for predicting insignificant CaP was less than 10% tumor as the greatest percentage of carcinoma in any core and a biopsy Gleason score of less than 7, yielding a sensitivity of 76.9% and specificity of 75.2%. For predicting advanced CaP, the best model was a total biopsy length of CaP greater than 3 mm, Gleason high-grade pattern 4 or 5 disease, perineural invasion in the biopsy, and more than one in six biopsy cores containing CaP, yielding a sensitivity of 13.6% and specificity of 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: The prediction of insignificant and advanced CaP on an individual basis in patients from a prostate-specific antigen screening study is a challenging problem. However, several histopathologic features of CaP in needle biopsy tissue contain useful information about the severity of disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15351590     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.04.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  10 in total

1.  Pathology: the lottery of conventional prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Gerald L Andriole
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Toward microendoscopic electrical impedance tomography for intraoperative surgical margin assessment.

Authors:  Ryan J Halter; Young-Joong Kim
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 4.538

Review 3.  [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

4.  Phantom Studies of Fused-Data TREIT Using Only Biopsy-Probe Electrodes.

Authors:  Ethan K Murphy; Xiaotian Wu; Alicia C Everitt; Ryan J Halter
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2020-10-28       Impact factor: 10.048

Review 5.  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

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of extended biopsies for the staging of microfocal prostate cancers in autopsy specimen.

Authors:  N B Delongchamps; G de la Roza; V Chandan; R Jones; G Threatte; M Jumbelic; G P Haas
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2008-07-15       Impact factor: 5.554

7.  Pathologic characteristics of cancers detected in The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial: implications for prostate cancer detection and chemoprevention.

Authors:  M Scott Lucia; Amy K Darke; Phyllis J Goodman; Francisco G La Rosa; Howard L Parnes; Leslie G Ford; Charles A Coltman; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2008-05-18

8.  [Clinical insignificance of prostate cancer: are there morphological findings?].

Authors:  B Helpap; L Egevad
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 9.  Active surveillance versus radical treatment for favorable-risk localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2006-09

10.  Can Prostate-Specific Antigen Kinetics before Prostate Biopsy Predict the Malignant Potential of Prostate Cancer?

Authors:  Sang Jin Kim; Tae Yoong Jeong; Dae Seon Yoo; Jinsung Park; Seok Cho; Seok Ho Kang; Sang Hyub Lee; Seung Hyun Jeon; Tchun Yong Lee; Sung Yul Park
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 2.759

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.