PURPOSE: To determine if perineural invasion (PNI) should be included in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason score, and clinical T-stage for risk-stratification of patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed prostatectomy findings for 1550 patients, from a prospectively collected institutional database, to determine whether PNI was a significant predictor for upgrading of Gleason score or pathologic T3 disease after patients were stratified into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (on the basis of PSA, biopsy Gleason score, and clinical T-stage). RESULTS: For the overall population, PNI was associated with a significantly increased frequency of upgrading and of pathologic T3 disease. After stratification, PNI was still associated with significantly increased odds of pathologic T3 disease within each risk group. In particular, for low-risk patients, there was a markedly increased risk of extraprostatic extension (23% vs. 7%), comparable to that of intermediate-risk patients. Among high-risk patients, PNI was associated with an increased risk of seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node involvement. Furthermore, over 80% of high-risk patients with PNI were noted to have an indication for postoperative radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Perineural invasion may be useful for risk-stratification of prostate cancer. Our data suggest that low-risk patients with PNI on biopsy may benefit from treatment typically reserved for those with intermediate-risk disease. In addition, men with high-risk disease and PNI, who are contemplating surgery, should be informed of the high likelihood of having an indication for postoperative radiation therapy.
PURPOSE: To determine if perineural invasion (PNI) should be included in addition to prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason score, and clinical T-stage for risk-stratification of patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed prostatectomy findings for 1550 patients, from a prospectively collected institutional database, to determine whether PNI was a significant predictor for upgrading of Gleason score or pathologic T3 disease after patients were stratified into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (on the basis of PSA, biopsy Gleason score, and clinical T-stage). RESULTS: For the overall population, PNI was associated with a significantly increased frequency of upgrading and of pathologic T3 disease. After stratification, PNI was still associated with significantly increased odds of pathologic T3 disease within each risk group. In particular, for low-risk patients, there was a markedly increased risk of extraprostatic extension (23% vs. 7%), comparable to that of intermediate-risk patients. Among high-risk patients, PNI was associated with an increased risk of seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node involvement. Furthermore, over 80% of high-risk patients with PNI were noted to have an indication for postoperative radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Perineural invasion may be useful for risk-stratification of prostate cancer. Our data suggest that low-risk patients with PNI on biopsy may benefit from treatment typically reserved for those with intermediate-risk disease. In addition, men with high-risk disease and PNI, who are contemplating surgery, should be informed of the high likelihood of having an indication for postoperative radiation therapy.
Authors: Christopher L Coogan; Kalyan C Latchamsetty; Jason Greenfield; John M Corman; Barlow Lynch; Christopher R Porter Journal: BJU Int Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Michel Bolla; Hein van Poppel; Laurence Collette; Paul van Cangh; Kris Vekemans; Luigi Da Pozzo; Theo M de Reijke; Antony Verbaeys; Jean-François Bosset; Roland van Velthoven; Jean-Marie Maréchal; Pierre Scalliet; Karin Haustermans; Marianne Piérart Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Aug 13-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gregory S Merrick; Wayne M Butler; Kent E Wallner; Robert W Galbreath; Zachariah A Allen; Edward Adamovich Journal: Urology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Clair Beard; Delray Schultz; Marian Loffredo; Kerri Cote; Andrew A Renshaw; Mark D Hurwitz; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-06-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Catherine M Tangen; Jorge Paradelo; M Scott Lucia; Gary Miller; Dean Troyer; Edward Messing; Jeffrey Forman; Joseph Chin; Gregory Swanson; Edith Canby-Hagino; E David Crawford Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alan Pollack; Gunar K Zagars; George Starkschall; John A Antolak; J Jack Lee; Eugene Huang; Andrew C von Eschenbach; Deborah A Kuban; Isaac Rosen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher J Weight; Jay P Ciezki; Chandana A Reddy; Ming Zhou; Eric A Klein Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Isis C Sroka; Todd A Anderson; Kathy M McDaniel; Raymond B Nagle; Matthew B Gretzer; Anne E Cress Journal: J Cell Physiol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 6.384
Authors: Michael A Liss; Adam Gordon; Blanca Morales; Kathryn Osann; Douglas Skarecky; Achim Lusch; Frank Zaldivar; Thomas E Ahlering Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Jun Taik Lee; Seungsoo Lee; Chang Jin Yun; Byung Joo Jeon; Jung Man Kim; Hong Koo Ha; Wan Lee; Moon Kee Chung Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2010-11-17
Authors: Dawid Sigorski; Jacek Gulczyński; Aleksandra Sejda; Wojciech Rogowski; Ewa Iżycka-Świeszewska Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 6.244