Shulin Wu1, Xueming Lin2, Sharron X Lin1, Min Lu3, Tuo Deng1, Zongwei Wang1, Aria F Olumi4, Douglas M Dahl1, Dongwen Wang2, Michael L Blute1, Chin-Lee Wu1. 1. Department of Urology and Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Urology, First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China. 3. Department of Pathology, Peking University Third Hospital, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China. 4. Division of Urologic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the association between biopsy perineural invasion (PNI) and oncological outcomes of prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP).Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science up to December 2018 to identify the eligible studies that included localized PCa patients who underwent biopsy and subsequently RP as well as follow-up information. Meta-analyses were conducted using available hazard ratios (HRs) of biopsy PNI from both univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Eighteen studies including 14,855 patients with treatment follow-up information were included in the current systematic review. The rate of biopsy PNI varied between 7.0% and 33.0%. Seven out of the 18 studies that demonstrated biopsy PNI were associated with adverse pathologic features. Thirteen out of the 18 studies showed biopsy PNI correlated significantly with higher rates of biochemical recurrence (BCR)/cancer progression status or worse prognostic outcomes. With pooled data based on four studies with available univariate analysis results and four studies with multivariate analysis, statistically significant associations were found between biopsy PNI and BCR with univariate analysis (HR = 2.05; 95% CI = 1.57-2.68; p < 0.001) and with multivariate analysis (HR = 1.57; 95% CI = 1.28-1.93; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Evidence from the included observational studies indicated that biopsy PNI was not only correlated with adverse pathologic characteristics but also with worse BCR prognosis of local PCa after RP. The status of biopsy PNI could serve as a promising risk-stratification factor to help the decision-making process, considering active surveillance (AS) or further treatment for PCa patients.
Objectives: To investigate the association between biopsy perineural invasion (PNI) and oncological outcomes of prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP).Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science up to December 2018 to identify the eligible studies that included localized PCa patients who underwent biopsy and subsequently RP as well as follow-up information. Meta-analyses were conducted using available hazard ratios (HRs) of biopsy PNI from both univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Eighteen studies including 14,855 patients with treatment follow-up information were included in the current systematic review. The rate of biopsy PNI varied between 7.0% and 33.0%. Seven out of the 18 studies that demonstrated biopsy PNI were associated with adverse pathologic features. Thirteen out of the 18 studies showed biopsy PNI correlated significantly with higher rates of biochemical recurrence (BCR)/cancer progression status or worse prognostic outcomes. With pooled data based on four studies with available univariate analysis results and four studies with multivariate analysis, statistically significant associations were found between biopsy PNI and BCR with univariate analysis (HR = 2.05; 95% CI = 1.57-2.68; p < 0.001) and with multivariate analysis (HR = 1.57; 95% CI = 1.28-1.93; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Evidence from the included observational studies indicated that biopsy PNI was not only correlated with adverse pathologic characteristics but also with worse BCR prognosis of local PCa after RP. The status of biopsy PNI could serve as a promising risk-stratification factor to help the decision-making process, considering active surveillance (AS) or further treatment for PCa patients.
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: Kimmo Kartasalo; Peter Ström; Pekka Ruusuvuori; Hemamali Samaratunga; Brett Delahunt; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Martin Eklund; Lars Egevad Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 4.535
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
Authors: Dawid Sigorski; Jacek Gulczyński; Aleksandra Sejda; Wojciech Rogowski; Ewa Iżycka-Świeszewska Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Juho Jasu; Teemu Tolonen; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Himisha Beltran; Susan Halabi; Mario A Eisenberger; Michael A Carducci; Yohann Loriot; Kim Van der Eecken; Martijn Lolkema; Charles J Ryan; Sinja Taavitsainen; Silke Gillessen; Gunilla Högnäs; Timo Talvitie; Robert J Taylor; Antti Koskenalho; Piet Ost; Teemu J Murtola; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Teuvo Tammela; Anssi Auvinen; Paula Kujala; Thomas J Smith; Pirkko-Liisa Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; William B Isaacs; Matti Nykter; Juha Kesseli; G Steven Bova Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-07-02