Robert M Turner1, Todd S Yecies2, Jonathan G Yabes3, Benjamin T Ristau4, Elen Woldemichael2, Benjamin J Davies2, Bruce L Jacobs2, Joel B Nelson2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: turnerrm@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Department of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of biopsy perineural invasion (PNI) with adverse pathologic findings on radical prostatectomy in patients who would have been candidates for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: Using a prospectively populated database of 3084 men who underwent open radical prostatectomy, candidates for AS by strict (Johns Hopkins) and expanded (University of Toronto) criteria were identified. The presence of adverse pathologic features at radical prostatectomy was compared between those men with and without biopsy PNI. RESULTS: Of 596 men who met strict criteria for AS, 16 (3%) had biopsy PNI. In the strict AS cohort, there were no differences in adverse pathologic features at radical prostatectomy between those with and without PNI. Of 1197 men who were candidates for AS by expanded criteria, 102 (9%) had biopsy PNI. Men with biopsy PNI in the expanded AS cohort were more likely to have extraprostatic extension (P < .001) and pathologic upgrading (P = .01) at prostatectomy. In addition, those with PNI had larger dominant nodules (P < .001), and cancer comprised a greater percentage of their prostate glands (P < .001). There was no difference in the proportion with a positive margin between the 2 groups (P = .77). CONCLUSION: Biopsy PNI was rare in patients who met strict criteria for AS. Among those men who met expanded criteria, PNI was associated with adverse pathologic findings upon prostatectomy. The presence of biopsy PNI may have a role in further risk stratifying patients who meet expanded criteria for AS.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of biopsy perineural invasion (PNI) with adverse pathologic findings on radical prostatectomy in patients who would have been candidates for active surveillance (AS). METHODS: Using a prospectively populated database of 3084 men who underwent open radical prostatectomy, candidates for AS by strict (Johns Hopkins) and expanded (University of Toronto) criteria were identified. The presence of adverse pathologic features at radical prostatectomy was compared between those men with and without biopsy PNI. RESULTS: Of 596 men who met strict criteria for AS, 16 (3%) had biopsy PNI. In the strict AS cohort, there were no differences in adverse pathologic features at radical prostatectomy between those with and without PNI. Of 1197 men who were candidates for AS by expanded criteria, 102 (9%) had biopsy PNI. Men with biopsy PNI in the expanded AS cohort were more likely to have extraprostatic extension (P < .001) and pathologic upgrading (P = .01) at prostatectomy. In addition, those with PNI had larger dominant nodules (P < .001), and cancer comprised a greater percentage of their prostate glands (P < .001). There was no difference in the proportion with a positive margin between the 2 groups (P = .77). CONCLUSION: Biopsy PNI was rare in patients who met strict criteria for AS. Among those men who met expanded criteria, PNI was associated with adverse pathologic findings upon prostatectomy. The presence of biopsy PNI may have a role in further risk stratifying patients who meet expanded criteria for AS.
Authors: Guillaume Ploussard; Jonathan I Epstein; Rodolfo Montironi; Peter R Carroll; Manfred Wirth; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Anders S Bjartell; Francesco Montorsi; Stephen J Freedland; Andreas Erbersdobler; Theodorus H van der Kwast Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nicholas J van As; Andrew R Norman; Karen Thomas; Vincent S Khoo; Alan Thompson; Robert A Huddart; Alan Horwich; David P Dearnaley; Christopher C Parker Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-03-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: John O DeLancey; David P Wood; Chang He; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; David C Miller; Bruce L Jacobs; James E Montie; Brent K Hollenbeck; Ted A Skolarus Journal: Urology Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Joshua A Cohn; Pankaj P Dangle; Chihsiung E Wang; Charles B Brendler; Kristian R Novakovic; Michael S McGuire; Brian T Helfand Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Lars Egevad; Brett Delahunt; Hemamali Samaratunga; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Henrik Olsson; Peter Ström; Cecilia Lindskog; Tomi Häkkinen; Kimmo Kartasalo; Martin Eklund; Pekka Ruusuvuori Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 4.064
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: 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