OBJECTIVE: To identify the clinical characteristics of anterior prostate cancers (APCs) and to compare these with posterior prostate cancers (PPCs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 1290 consecutive open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RPs) at the authors' institution from January 2000 to March 2004. Prostates were processed using a whole-mount technique. Each surgical specimen was reviewed by one pathologist, and tumour areas were marked, measured and mapped. Positive surgical margins (PSMs) were defined as the presence of cancer cells at the inked surface of the specimen. Specimens were then categorized by the location of their dominant tumour, i.e. pure anterior, anterior > posterior, posterior > anterior, or pure posterior. We compared the clinical and pathological characteristics of 259 patients in the pure-anterior group with the 594 in the pure-posterior group. RESULTS: Before RP, APCs had a significantly lower biopsy Gleason score (78% vs 68% with Gleason 4-6), fewer mean biopsy cores positive (2.0 vs 2.6), a smaller median percentage of positive cores (17% vs 26%), lower clinical stage (T1 in 79% vs 62%), and higher progression-free probability estimated by preoperative nomogram (86% vs 84%) than PPCs. Patients with APCs also had more previous negative biopsy sessions. The pathological analysis of RP specimens showed that those with APCs had higher tumour volume (1.6 vs 0.83 mL) and had a higher PSM rate (12% vs 7%) than those with PPCs, despite specimens with PPCs having higher rates of extraprostatic extension (10% vs 19%). CONCLUSIONS: APCs have lower Gleason grade and lower rates of extraprostatic extension, yet patients with anterior tumours have higher overall tumour volumes and higher PSM rates. Because current tools for detecting and staging prostate cancer can underestimate the extent of anterior prostate disease, improved methods are needed for localizing and characterizing anterior cancers.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the clinical characteristics of anterior prostate cancers (APCs) and to compare these with posterior prostate cancers (PPCs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 1290 consecutive open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RPs) at the authors' institution from January 2000 to March 2004. Prostates were processed using a whole-mount technique. Each surgical specimen was reviewed by one pathologist, and tumour areas were marked, measured and mapped. Positive surgical margins (PSMs) were defined as the presence of cancer cells at the inked surface of the specimen. Specimens were then categorized by the location of their dominant tumour, i.e. pure anterior, anterior > posterior, posterior > anterior, or pure posterior. We compared the clinical and pathological characteristics of 259 patients in the pure-anterior group with the 594 in the pure-posterior group. RESULTS: Before RP, APCs had a significantly lower biopsy Gleason score (78% vs 68% with Gleason 4-6), fewer mean biopsy cores positive (2.0 vs 2.6), a smaller median percentage of positive cores (17% vs 26%), lower clinical stage (T1 in 79% vs 62%), and higher progression-free probability estimated by preoperative nomogram (86% vs 84%) than PPCs. Patients with APCs also had more previous negative biopsy sessions. The pathological analysis of RP specimens showed that those with APCs had higher tumour volume (1.6 vs 0.83 mL) and had a higher PSM rate (12% vs 7%) than those with PPCs, despite specimens with PPCs having higher rates of extraprostatic extension (10% vs 19%). CONCLUSIONS: APCs have lower Gleason grade and lower rates of extraprostatic extension, yet patients with anterior tumours have higher overall tumour volumes and higher PSM rates. Because current tools for detecting and staging prostate cancer can underestimate the extent of anterior prostate disease, improved methods are needed for localizing and characterizing anterior cancers.
Authors: T M Wheeler; O Dillioglugil; M W Kattan; A Arakawa; S Soh; K Suyama; M Ohori; P T Scardino Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Jan-Erik Johansson; Ove Andrén; Swen-Olof Andersson; Paul W Dickman; Lars Holmberg; Anders Magnuson; Hans-Olov Adami Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kristen L Zakian; Steven Eberhardt; Hedvig Hricak; Amita Shukla-Dave; Shanon Kleinman; Manickam Muruganandham; Kanishka Sircar; Michael W Kattan; Victor E Reuter; Peter T Scardino; Jason A Koutcher Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-08-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J I Epstein; D W Chan; L J Sokoll; P C Walsh; J L Cox; H Rittenhouse; R Wolfert; H B Carter Journal: J Urol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ofer Yossepowitch; Kanishka Sircar; Peter T Scardino; Makoto Ohori; Michael W Kattan; Thomas M Wheeler; Victor E Reuter Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Richard Hoffmann; Callum Logan; Michael O'Callaghan; Kirsten Gormly; Ken Chan; Darren Foreman Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Findlay MacAskill; Su-Min Lee; David Eldred-Evans; Wahyu Wulaningsih; Rick Popert; Konrad Wolfe; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Giles Rottenberg; Sidath H Liyanage; Peter Acher Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Dmitry Volkin; Baris Turkbey; Anthony N Hoang; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Nitin Yerram; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Jeffrey W Nix; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ghazi Al Edwan; Sangeet Ghai; David Margel; Girish Kulkarni; Rob Hamilton; Ants Toi; Masoom A Haidar; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Ming-Hui Chen; Yuanye Zhang; Clare M Tempany; Robert A Cormack; Clair J Beard; Mark D Hurwitz; W Warren Suh; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Joaquin J Garcia; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Anuradha Gopalan; Satish K Tickoo; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 6.394
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
Authors: Daniel N Costa; B Nicolas Bloch; David F Yao; Martin G Sanda; Long Ngo; Elizabeth M Genega; Ivan Pedrosa; William C DeWolf; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Daniel W Good; Grant D Stewart; Paimaun Zakikhani; Henry Yuen; Antony C P Riddick; Prasad R Bollina; Marie O'Donnell; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; S Alan McNeill Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 4.226