Perineural invasion on prostate biopsy does not predict adverse pathological outcome

Canadian Journal of Urology

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 6567-6572

  Elharram, Malik ^a   Margel, David ^b   Finelli, Antonio ^b   Trachtenberg, John ^b   Evans, Andrew ^b   van der Kwast, Theodorus H ^b   Sweet, Joan M ^b   Fleshner, Neil ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

Author keywords

Perineural invasion; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE FREE SURVIVAL; FACTUAL DATABASE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE TUMOR; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEMINAL VESICLE; SURVIVAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR INVASION; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DISEASE-FREE SURVIVAL; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; ONTARIO; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEMINAL VESICLES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84878438377     PISSN: 11959479     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional update. JAMA 1997;277(18):1445-1451.
2. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Carrol PR. Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). J Urol 2003; 170(6 Pt 2):S21-S25.
3. Freedland SJ, Csathy GS, Dorey F, Aronson WJ. Percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer is more predictive of biochemical failure or adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy than prostate specific antigen or Gleason score. J Urol 2002;167(2 Pt 1):516-520.
4. Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(12):868-878.
5. Liebig C, Ayala G, Wilks JA, Berger DH, Albo D. Perineural invasion in cancer: a review of the literature. Cancer 2009;115(15):3379-3391.
6. Lee IH, Roberts R, Shah RB, Wojno KJ, Wei JT, Sandler HM. Perineural invasion is a marker for pathologically advanced disease in localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68(4):1059-1064.
7. Vargas SO, Jiroutek M, Welch WR, Nucci MR, D'Amico AV, Renshaw AA. Perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy specimens: correlation with EPE at resection. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111(2):223-228.
8. Holmes GF, Walsh PC, Pound CR, Epstein JI. Excision of the neurovascular bundle at radical prostectomy in cases with perineural invasion on needle biopsy. J Urol 1999;53(4):752-756.
9. Villers A, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. The role of perineural space invasion in the local spread of prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 1989;142(3):763-768.
10. Bismar TA, Lewis JS Jr, Vollmer RT, Humphrey PA. Multiple measures of carcinoma extent versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a screening population. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27(4):432-440.
11. Lee JT, Lee S, Yun CJ et al. Prediction of perineural invasion and its prognostic value in patients with prostate cancer. Korean J Urol 2010;51(11):745-751.
12. Loeb S, Epstein JI, Humphreys EB, Walsh PC. Does perineural invasion of prostate biopsy predict adverse prostatectomy outcomes? BJU Int 2010;105(11):1510-1513.
13. Al-Hussain T, Carter B, Epstein J. Significance of prostate adenocarcinoma pernineural invasion on biopsy in patients who are otherwise candidates for active surveillance. J Urol 2011;186(2): 470-473.
14. Harden P, Shelly MD, Clements H et al. The prognostic significance of perineural invasion in prostatic cancer biopsies: a systematic review. Cancer 2007;109(1):13-24.
15. Han M, Partin AW, Chan DY, Walsh PC. An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margin in a large retropubic prostatectomy series. J Urol 2004;171(1):23-26.
16. Greene KL, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ et al. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol 2009;182(5): 2232-2241.
17. Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K et al. A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol 2000;163(1):152-157.
18. Montironi R, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A et al. Original Gleason system versus 2005 ISUP modified Gleason system: the importance of indicating which system. Eur Urol 2010;58(3):369-373.
19. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Frtiz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. AJCC Cancer staging manual: seventh edition. American Joint Cancer Committee 2010.
20. Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Pizov G, Walsh PC. Influence of capsular penetration on progression following radical prostatectomy: a study of 196 cases with long-term follow up. J Urol 1993;150(1): 135-141.
21. Bastacky SI, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Relationship between perineural tumor invasion on needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy capsular penetration in clinical stage B adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Am J Surg Pathol 1993;17(4):336-341.