Preoperative prediction of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: The role of prostate volume and the number of positive cores

Urologia Internationalis

Volumn 84, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 153-158

  Raventós, Carles X ^a   Orsola, Anna ^a   De Torres, Inés ^a   Cecchini, Lluís ^a   Trilla, Enrique ^a   Planas, Jacques ^a   Morote, Joan ^a  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARI VALL D HEBRON   (Spain)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; Insignificant prostate cancer; Positive cores; Predictive model; Prostate volume; Radical prostatectomy

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; ORGAN SIZE; PREDICTION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR BIOPSY; VALIDITY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK;

EID: 77949351770     PISSN: 00421138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000277591     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP: Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993;71:933-938.
2. Aus G, Abbou CC, Bolla M, Heidenreich A, Schmid HP, van Poppel H, Wolff J, Zattoni F: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2005;48:546-551.
3. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, et al: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-974.
4. Cheng L, Koch MO, Juliar BE, Daggy JK, Foster RS, Bihrle R, Gardner TA: The combined percentage of Gleason patterns 4 and 5 is the best predictor of cancer progression after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2911-2917.
5. Guzzo TJ, Vira MA, Neway W, Hwang WT, Tomaszewski J, VanArsdalen K, Wein AJ, Malkowicz SB: Minimal tumor volume may provide additional prognostic information in good performance patients after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2007;69:1147-1151.
6. Anast JW, Andriole GL, Bismar TA, Yan Y, Humphrey PA: Relating biopsy and clinical variables to radical prostatectomy findings: can insignificant and advanced prostate cancer be predicted in a screening population? Urology 2004;64:544-550.
7. Epstein JI, Sanderson H, Carter HB, Scharfstein DO: Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2005;66:356-360.
8. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB: Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368-374.
9. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Dunn JK, Stamey TA, Scardino PT: The pathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer detectable with current diagnostic tests. J Urol 1994;152:1714-1720.
10. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Bratell S, Spangberg A, Busch C, Nordling S, Garmo H, et al: Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1977-1984.
11. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J: 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2005;293:2095-2101.
12. Klotz L: Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2006;24:46-50.
13. D'Amico AV, Moul J, Carroll PR, Sun L, Lubeck D, Chen MH: Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2163-2172.
14. Schmid HP, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA: Systematic morphometry of radical prostatectomy samples. A guideline for general practice (in German). Helv Chir Acta 1992;59:471-476.
15. Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ, Walsh PC, Cox JL, Rittenhouse H, Wolfert R, Carter HB: Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate-specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol 1998;160:2407-2411.
16. Furuya Y, Fuse H, Nagakawa O, Masai M: Preoperative parameters to predict tumor volume in Japanese patients with nonpalpable prostate cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2002;7:109-113.
17. Cheng L, Poulos CK, Pan CX, Jones TD, Daggy JK, Eble JN, Koch MO: Preoperative prediction of small volume cancer (<0.5 ml) in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2005;174:898-902.
18. Dugan JA, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Qian J, Bergstralh EJ, Oesterling JE: The definition and preoperative prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. JAMA 1996;275:288-294.
19. Allan RW, Sanderson H, Epstein JI: Correlation of minute (0.5 mm or less) focus of prostate adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy with radical prostatectomy specimen: role of prostate specific antigen density. J Urol 2003;170:370-372.
20. O'Connell MJ, Smith CS, Fitzpatrick PE, Keane CO, Fitzpatrick JM, Behan M, Fenlon HF, Murray JG: Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate gland: value of 12 versus 6 cores. Abdom Imaging 2004;29:132-136.
21. Thiesler T, Trinkler F, Horcic M, Willi N, Cathomas G, Hailemariam S: Patients with low prostate-specific antigen levels (< or = 4 ng/ml) would benefit from a twelve-core biopsy protocol for prostate cancer detection. Urol Int 2007;78:318-322.
22. Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F: Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 2007;52:1309-1322.
23. Fukagai T, Namiki T, Namiki H, Carlile RG, Shimada M, Yoshida H: Discrepancies between Gleason scores of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Pathol Int 2001;51:364-370.
24. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM: Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;166:104-110.
25. Algaba Arrea F, Chivite de Leon A, Santaularia Segura JM, Oliver Samper A: Evidence of the radical prostatectomy Gleason score in the biopsy Gleason score (in Spanish). Actas Urol Esp 2004;28:21-26.
26. Lattouf JB, Saad F: Gleason score on biopsy: is it reliable for predicting the final grade on pathology? BJU Int 2002;90:694-699.
27. Poulos CK, Daggy JK, Cheng L: Prostate needle biopsies: multiple variables are predictive of final tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer 2004;101:527-532.
28. Ochiai A, Trpkov K, Yilmaz A, Donnelly B, Babaian RJ: Validation of a prediction model for low volume/low grade cancer: application in selecting patients for active surveillance. J Urol 2007;177:907-910.
29. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Yu X, Antenor JA, Suarez BK, Catalona WJ: Prostate-specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness. J Urol 2007;177:505-509.
30. Augustin H, Hammerer PG, Graefen M, Erbersdobler A, Blonski J, Palisaar J, Daghofer F, Huland H: Insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimen: time trends and preoperative prediction. Eur Urol 2003;43:455-460.
31. Kattan MW, Karpeh MS, Mazumdar M, Brennan MF: Postoperative nomogram for disease-specific survival after an R0 resection for gastric carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3647-3650.
32. Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ, Schroder FH: Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 2007;177:107-112.
33. Klotz LH, Nam RK: Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer: clinical experience and a 'number needed to treat' analysis. Can J Urol 2006;13(suppl 1):48-55.