PURPOSE: The aim was to eliminate, by DNA comparison, any identity mismatch between operative and biopsy specimens and to analyse the determinants of all pT0 prostate cancers occurred in a single institution. METHODS: All prostate pT0 cases in a single institution over 20 years were investigated. None of the patients had been diagnosed after a transurethral resection of the prostate nor had they received neoadjuvant hormonal treatment. The biopsies performed in other centres had been referred for a centralized pathologic re-analysis. DNA analysis was performed in samples from operative and biopsy specimens, and pairs of tissues were blindly constituted. Correct matching was verified in each pair and compared to the original database in order to comment on the occurrence of identity mismatches in the series. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (0.77 %) had been diagnosed as having pT0 prostate cancer among the 2,462 RP procedures performed over 19 years. The biopsy re-analysis invalidated the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer in one biopsy set performed elsewhere. Among 12 entirely processed cases, the biochemistry procedure evaluated as "very unlikely" the occurrence of an error in tissue identification in the biopsy setting, during the surgical procedure or the pathological analysis. No identification error of tissue samples was established in this first verified pT0 series. CONCLUSIONS: Although it must be suspected, specimen identification error was not a cause for pT0 prostate cancer. Only after a full pathological and DNA verification, the pT0 stage remains a sole entity, unexplained in most cases.
PURPOSE: The aim was to eliminate, by DNA comparison, any identity mismatch between operative and biopsy specimens and to analyse the determinants of all pT0 prostate cancers occurred in a single institution. METHODS: All prostate pT0 cases in a single institution over 20 years were investigated. None of the patients had been diagnosed after a transurethral resection of the prostate nor had they received neoadjuvant hormonal treatment. The biopsies performed in other centres had been referred for a centralized pathologic re-analysis. DNA analysis was performed in samples from operative and biopsy specimens, and pairs of tissues were blindly constituted. Correct matching was verified in each pair and compared to the original database in order to comment on the occurrence of identity mismatches in the series. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (0.77 %) had been diagnosed as having pT0 prostate cancer among the 2,462 RP procedures performed over 19 years. The biopsy re-analysis invalidated the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer in one biopsy set performed elsewhere. Among 12 entirely processed cases, the biochemistry procedure evaluated as "very unlikely" the occurrence of an error in tissue identification in the biopsy setting, during the surgical procedure or the pathological analysis. No identification error of tissue samples was established in this first verified pT0 series. CONCLUSIONS: Although it must be suspected, specimen identification error was not a cause for pT0 prostate cancer. Only after a full pathological and DNA verification, the pT0 stage remains a sole entity, unexplained in most cases.
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Zohar A Dotan; Fernando J Bianco; Hans Lilja; Peter T Scardino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott D Ramsey; Steven B Zeliadt; Catherine R Fedorenko; David K Blough; Carol M Moinpour; Ingrid J Hall; Judith Lee Smith; Donatus U Ekwueme; Megan E Fairweather; Ian M Thompson; Thomas E Keane; David F Penson Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Junsoo Park; In Gab Jeong; Jeong Kyoon Bang; Young Mee Cho; Jae Y Ro; Jun Hyuk Hong; Hanjong Ahn; Choung-Soo Kim Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2010-06-21