PURPOSE: Perineural invasion (PNI) in prostate cancer has been associated with poor prognosis. We sought to determine whether biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) PNI are associated with adverse outcomes. A secondary objective was to determine whether prostate biopsy PNI should alter surgical technique. METHODS: Patients were categorized by PNI on biopsy and RP specimens. Associations between PNI, clinicopathologic characteristics, and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 2,500 patients undergoing open RP by a single-surgeon from 1999 to 2011 were analyzed. In unadjusted univariate analyses, biopsy PNI was significantly associated with Gleason score, clinical stage, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), positive lymph nodes, and BCR (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, EPE (p < 0.001), and SVI (p = 0.022) remained associated with biopsy PNI. Biopsy PNI was not associated with positive margins at RP (OR 1.3, 95 % CI 0.92-1.9). The presence of PNI in the final RP specimen conferred a greater than 4 times increased odds of positive margin (OR 4.6, 95 % CI 2.30-9.22; p < 0.0001). Men with PNI on biopsy were 1.5 times more likely to experience BCR (OR 1.5, 1.06-2.01). PNI on biopsy or RP specimens was not associated with overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: In men undergoing open RP for clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma, biopsy PNI is associated with an increased risk of BCR. PNI on prostate biopsy was not associated with positive surgical margins after adjusting for related co-variables. The presence of PNI on prostate biopsy should not preclude utilization of a nerve-sparing approach.
PURPOSE: Perineural invasion (PNI) in prostate cancer has been associated with poor prognosis. We sought to determine whether biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) PNI are associated with adverse outcomes. A secondary objective was to determine whether prostate biopsy PNI should alter surgical technique. METHODS:Patients were categorized by PNI on biopsy and RP specimens. Associations between PNI, clinicopathologic characteristics, and biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 2,500 patients undergoing open RP by a single-surgeon from 1999 to 2011 were analyzed. In unadjusted univariate analyses, biopsy PNI was significantly associated with Gleason score, clinical stage, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), positive lymph nodes, and BCR (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, EPE (p < 0.001), and SVI (p = 0.022) remained associated with biopsy PNI. Biopsy PNI was not associated with positive margins at RP (OR 1.3, 95 % CI 0.92-1.9). The presence of PNI in the final RP specimen conferred a greater than 4 times increased odds of positive margin (OR 4.6, 95 % CI 2.30-9.22; p < 0.0001). Men with PNI on biopsy were 1.5 times more likely to experience BCR (OR 1.5, 1.06-2.01). PNI on biopsy or RP specimens was not associated with overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: In men undergoing open RP for clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma, biopsy PNI is associated with an increased risk of BCR. PNI on prostate biopsy was not associated with positive surgical margins after adjusting for related co-variables. The presence of PNI on prostate biopsy should not preclude utilization of a nerve-sparing approach.
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Peter T Scardino; Patrick C Walsh; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Bruce J Trock; Zhaoyong Feng; David P Wood; James A Eastham; Ofer Yossepowitch; Danny M Rabah; Michael W Kattan; Changhong Yu; Eric A Klein; Andrew J Stephenson Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Karim S Elsahwi; Emma Barber; Jessica Illuzzi; Natalia Buza; Elena Ratner; Dan-Arin Silasi; Alessandro D Santin; Masoud Azodi; Peter E Schwartz; Thomas J Rutherford Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-10-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Betina Katz; Miguel Srougi; Marcos Dall'Oglio; Adriano J Nesrallah; Alexandre C Sant'anna; José Pontes; Alberto A Antunes; Sabrina T Reis; Nayara Viana; Adriana Sañudo; Luiz H Camara-Lopes; Katia R M Leite Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Edward M Schaeffer; Bruce J Trock; Jonathan I Epstein; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Patrick C Walsh Journal: Urology Date: 2009-11-22 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Gustavo E Ayala; Hong Dai; Michael Ittmann; Rile Li; Michael Powell; Anna Frolov; Thomas M Wheeler; Timothy C Thompson; David Rowley Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Andrew R Barsky; Ryan D Kraus; Ruben Carmona; Patricia M G Santos; Carrie Li; Lauren E Schwartz; Leslie K Ballas; Neha Vapiwala Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 4.452