The phenomenon of multifocality does not affect the biologic behavior of histologic prostate carcinoma

Medical Science Monitor

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2009, Pages

  Stamatiou, Konstantinos N ^a,b,c   Dilernia, Giorgio C ^c   Ilias, Georgios P ^a   Daskalopoulos, Georgios K ^b   Koutelekos, Ioannis K ^a   Marianou, Soultana N ^c   Sofras, Frank A ^b  

^a General Hospital of Thebes   (Greece)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF HERAKLION   (Greece)

^c Athens State ^*  (Greece)

Author keywords

Biologic behavior; Homogeneity; Multifocality

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOPSY; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; CADAVER; CANCER GROWTH; CANCER INVASION; CANCER STAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MULTIPLE CANCER; PROSTATE; PROSTATE CARCINOMA; SEMINAL VESICLE; TUMOR VOLUME; AGED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE TUMOR;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASM STAGING; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 63449106001     PISSN: 12341010     EISSN: 16433750     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Arora R, Koch MO, Eble JN et al: Heterogeneity of Gleason grade in multifocal adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer, 2004; 100(11): 2362-66
2. Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, Scardino PT: Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urol, 1994; 43(1): 60-66
3. 3.Baron JC, Zerbib M, Leveque JM et al: Detection of a prostatic adenocarcinomain the cysto-prostatectomy specimens of an invasive tumorof the bladder. Ann Urol, 1989; 23(2): 119-22
4. Djavan B, Susani M, Bursa B et al: Predictability and significance of multifocal prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen. Tech Urol, 1999; 5(3): 139-42
5. Miller GJ, Cygan JM: Morphology of prostate cancer: the effects of mul- tifocality on histological grade, tumor volume and capsule penetration. J Urol, 1994; 152(5 Pt 2): 1709-13
6. th ed. Philadelphia. WB Saunders, 1997; 2497
7. Corless CL: Evaluating early-stage prostate cancer. What pretreatment criteria best guide therapeutic decision making? Hematol Oncol Clin North Am, 1996; 10(3): 565-79
8. Colimbu M, Scinella R, Morales P: Differences in pathological characteristics and prognosis of clinical A2 prostatic cancer from A1 and B disease. J Urol, 1978; 119: 618
9. Fukagai T, Namiki T, Namiki H et al: Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int, 2001; 51(5): 364-70
10. Epstein JI, Steinberg GD: The significance of low-grade prostate cancer on needle biopsy. A radical prostatectomy study of tumor grade, volume, and stage of the biopsied and multifocal tumor. Cancer, 1990; 66(9): 1927-32
11. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Brendler CB: Radical prostatectomy for impalpable prostate cancer: the Johns Hopkins experience with tumors found on transurethral resection (stages T1A and T1B) and on needle biopsy (stage T1C). J Urol, 1994; 152(5 Pt 2): 1707-8
12. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Nolley R: Prognostic factors for multifocal prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of significance of secondary cancers. J Urol, 2003; 170(2 Pt 1): 459-63
13. Newman AJ Jr, Graham MA, Carlton CE Jr, Lieman S: Incidental carcinoma of the prostate at the time of transurethral resection: importance of evaluating every chip. J Urol, 1982; 128(5): 948-50