Literature DB >> 29992589

Continuous versus discontinuous tumor involvement: A dilemma in prostate biopsy quantitation.

Caroline Bsirini1, Alexandra M Danakas1, Hiroshi Miyamoto1,2,3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: No consensus has been reached for an optimal method of quantifying discontinuous tumor foci separated by intervening benign tissue on prostate biopsy (PBx). We examined sets of PBx, where cancer involved only one core, and corresponding radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Cases were divided into 3 groups-Group 1 (n = 80): <3 mm in end-to-end tumor measurement (continuous/discontinuous); Group 2 (n = 22): ≥3 mm in tumor length (continuous); and Group 3 (n = 15): ≥3 mm in end-to-end tumor measurement (discontinuous). The rate of Gleason score ≥7 was considerably lower in Group 1 (9%/30% on PBx/RP) than in Group 2 (50% [P < 0.001]/59% [P = 0.015] on PBx/RP) or Group 3 (40% [P = 0.005]/46% [P = 0.237] on PBx/RP). pT2 disease was significantly more often found in Group 1 (88%) than in Group 2 (68%, P = 0.049) or Group 3 (60%, P = 0.018). Surgical margin was significantly more often positive in Group 3 (27%) than in Group 1 (5%, P = 0.020), but not Group 2 (9%, P = 0.198). Moreover, estimated cancer volume (cc, mean ± SD) was significantly smaller in Group 1 (1.89 ± 1.98) than in Group 2 (3.56 ± 2.92, P = 0.026) or Group 3 (3.44 ± 2.02, P = 0.013). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed higher risks of biochemical recurrence after RP in Group 2, compared with Group 1 (P = 0.001) or Group 3 (P = 0.096). In 93 patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 cancer, higher rates of pT2+/3 disease (P = 0.023) and positive margin (P = 0.026), as well as larger cancer volume (P = 0.063), on RP were still seen in Group 3, compared with Group 1, but their differences were not statistically significant between Group 2 and Group 3.
CONCLUSIONS: Linear quantitation including intervening benign tissue on PBx may more precisely predict the actual tumor extent.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biochemical recurrence; prostate biopsy; prostatectomy; tumor grade and stage; tumor volume

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29992589     DOI: 10.1002/pros.23691

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate        ISSN: 0270-4137            Impact factor:   4.104


  2 in total

1.  Comparison of two commonly used methods in measurement of cancer volume in prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Viharkumar Patel; Samuel Hubbard; Wei Huang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2020-04-01

Review 2.  Standardization of reporting discontinuous tumor involvement in prostatic needle biopsy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Min Lu; Shulin Wu; Chin-Lee Wu
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 4.064

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.