Fairleigh Reeves1, Christopher M Hovens2, Laurence Harewood2, Shane Battye3, Justin S Peters2, Anthony J Costello2, Niall M Corcoran2. 1. Department of Urology and Surgery, University of Melbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia; 2. Department of Urology and Surgery, University of Melbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia; ; Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre Epworth, Richmond, Australia; 3. TissuPath Pty Ltd, Mount Waverley, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The ability of perineural invasion (PNI) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) is unclear. This study investigates this controversial question in a large cohort. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of prospectively collected data from 1497 men who underwent RP (no neoadjuvant therapy) for clinically localized prostate cancer. The association of PNI at RP with other clinicopathological parameters was evaluated. The correlation of clinicopathological factors and BCR (defined as prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >0.2 ng/mL) was investigated with univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis in 1159 men. RESULTS: PNI-positive patients were significantly more likely to have a higher RP Gleason score, pT3 disease, positive surgical margins, and greater cancer volume (p < 0.0005). The presence of PNI significantly correlated with BCR on univariable (hazard ratio 2.30, 95% confidence interval 1.50-3.55, p < 0.0005), but not multivariable analysis (p = 0.602). On multivariable Cox regression analysis the only independent prognostic factors were preoperative PSA, RP Gleason score, pT-stage, and positive surgical margin status. These findings are limited by a relatively short follow-up time and retrospective study design. CONCLUSIONS: PNI at RP is not an independent predictor of BCR. Therefore, routine reporting of PNI is not indicated. Future research should be targeted at the biology of PNI to increase the understanding of its role in prostate cancer progression.
INTRODUCTION: The ability of perineural invasion (PNI) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) is unclear. This study investigates this controversial question in a large cohort. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of prospectively collected data from 1497 men who underwent RP (no neoadjuvant therapy) for clinically localized prostate cancer. The association of PNI at RP with other clinicopathological parameters was evaluated. The correlation of clinicopathological factors and BCR (defined as prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >0.2 ng/mL) was investigated with univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis in 1159 men. RESULTS: PNI-positive patients were significantly more likely to have a higher RP Gleason score, pT3 disease, positive surgical margins, and greater cancer volume (p < 0.0005). The presence of PNI significantly correlated with BCR on univariable (hazard ratio 2.30, 95% confidence interval 1.50-3.55, p < 0.0005), but not multivariable analysis (p = 0.602). On multivariable Cox regression analysis the only independent prognostic factors were preoperative PSA, RP Gleason score, pT-stage, and positive surgical margin status. These findings are limited by a relatively short follow-up time and retrospective study design. CONCLUSIONS: PNI at RP is not an independent predictor of BCR. Therefore, routine reporting of PNI is not indicated. Future research should be targeted at the biology of PNI to increase the understanding of its role in prostate cancer progression.
Authors: A David Merrilees; Peter B Bethwaite; Grant L Russell; Richard G Robinson; Brett Delahunt Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2008-05-23 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Jae Hung Jung; Jae Won Lee; Francis Raymond P Arkoncel; Nam Hoon Cho; Noor Ashani Md Yusoff; Kwang Jin Kim; Jae Mann Song; Sung Jin Kim; Koon Ho Rha Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Gustavo E Ayala; Hong Dai; Salahaldin A Tahir; Rile Li; Terry Timme; Michael Ittmann; Anna Frolov; Thomas M Wheeler; David Rowley; Timothy C Thompson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 12.701
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: 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: Piotr Zareba; Richard Flavin; Masis Isikbay; Jennifer R Rider; Travis A Gerke; Stephen Finn; Andreas Pettersson; Francesca Giunchi; Robert H Unger; Alex M Tinianow; Swen-Olof Andersson; Ove Andrén; Katja Fall; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Amar S Ahmad; Vishnu Parameshwaran; Luis Beltran; Gabrielle Fisher; Bernard V North; David Greenberg; Geraldine Soosay; Henrik Møller; Peter Scardino; Jack Cuzick; Daniel M Berney Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-04-17
Authors: Ryan Douglas Kraus; Andrew Barsky; Lingyun Ji; Patricia Mae Garcia Santos; Nathan Cheng; Susan Groshen; Neha Vapiwala; Leslie K Ballas Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-09-19
Authors: Dawid Sigorski; Jacek Gulczyński; Aleksandra Sejda; Wojciech Rogowski; Ewa Iżycka-Świeszewska Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 6.244