Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

DNA comparison between operative and biopsy specimens to investigate stage pT0 after radical prostatectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim was to eliminate, by DNA comparison, any identity mismatch between operative and biopsy specimens and to analyse the determinants of all pT0 prostate cancers occurred in a single institution.

Methods

All prostate pT0 cases in a single institution over 20 years were investigated. None of the patients had been diagnosed after a transurethral resection of the prostate nor had they received neoadjuvant hormonal treatment. The biopsies performed in other centres had been referred for a centralized pathologic re-analysis. DNA analysis was performed in samples from operative and biopsy specimens, and pairs of tissues were blindly constituted. Correct matching was verified in each pair and compared to the original database in order to comment on the occurrence of identity mismatches in the series.

Results

Nineteen patients (0.77 %) had been diagnosed as having pT0 prostate cancer among the 2,462 RP procedures performed over 19 years. The biopsy re-analysis invalidated the initial diagnosis of prostate cancer in one biopsy set performed elsewhere. Among 12 entirely processed cases, the biochemistry procedure evaluated as “very unlikely” the occurrence of an error in tissue identification in the biopsy setting, during the surgical procedure or the pathological analysis. No identification error of tissue samples was established in this first verified pT0 series.

Conclusions

Although it must be suspected, specimen identification error was not a cause for pT0 prostate cancer. Only after a full pathological and DNA verification, the pT0 stage remains a sole entity, unexplained in most cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DNA:

Deoxyribonucleic acid

pT0:

Pathological tumour stage 0

RP:

Radical prostatectomy

PSA:

Prostate-specific antigen

TURP:

Transurethral resection of the prostate

References

  1. Salomon L, Azria D, Bastide C, Beuzeboc P, Cormier L, Cornud F, Eiss D, Eschwege P, Gaschignard N, Hennequin C, Molinie V, Mongiat Artus P, Moreau JL, Peneau M, Peyromaure M, Ravery V, Rebillard X, Richaud P, Rischmann P, Rozet F, Staerman F, Villers A, Soulie M (2010) Recommendations onco-urology 2010: prostate cancer. Prog Urol 20(Suppl 4):S217–S251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Montironi R, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Scarpelli M, Mazzucchelli R, Mikuz G, Kirkali Z, Montorsi F (2009) Stage pT0 in radical prostatectomy with no residual carcinoma and with a previous positive biopsy conveys a wrong message to clinicians and patients: why is cancer not present in the radical prostatectomy specimen? Eur Urol 56(2):272–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dalton L (2010) In the diagnosis of limited prostate cancer, is observer variability an important consideration when compared with variability of patient outcome? Am J Surg Pathol 34(7):1071–1072 author reply 1072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mazzucchelli R, Barbisan F, Tagliabracci A, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L, Scarpelli M, Montironi R (2007) Search for residual prostate cancer on pT0 radical prostatectomy after positive biopsy. Virchows Arch 450(4):371–378

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2009) International union against cancer (UICC) TNM classification of malignant tumors. 7th edn, Oxford, UK

  6. Stamey TAMJ, Freiha FS, Redwine E (1988) Morphometric and clinical studies on 68 consecutives radical prostatectomies. J Urol 139:1235–1239

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Dotan ZA, Bianco FJ Jr, Lilja H, Scardino PT (2006) Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol 24(24):3973–3978

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ahallal YA, Rabbani FR, Favaretto RF, Reuter VR, Scardino PTS, Guillonneau BG, Touijer KT (2010) Absence of residual tumour (pT0 status) at radical prostatectomy: oncologic outcome and predictors. Eur Urol Suppl 9(2):315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bessede T, Soulie M, Mottet N, Rebillard X, Peyromaure M, Ravery V, Salomon L (2010) Stage pT0 after radical prostatectomy with previous positive biopsy sets: a multicenter study. J Urol 183(3):958–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bostwick DG, Bostwick KC (2004) ‘Vanishing’ prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: incidence and long-term follow-up in 38 cases. BJU Int 94(1):57–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cao D, Hafez M, Berg K, Murphy K, Epstein JI (2005) Little or no residual prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy: vanishing cancer or switched specimen? A microsatellite analysis of specimen identity. Am J Surg Pathol 29(4):467–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Descazeaud A, Zerbib M, Flam T, Vieillefond A, Debre B, Peyromaure M (2006) Can pT0 stage of prostate cancer be predicted before radical prostatectomy? Eur Urol 50(6):1248–1252 (discussion 1253)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Duffield AS, Epstein JI (2009) Detection of cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens with no residual carcinoma in the initial review of slides. Am J Surg Pathol 33(1):120–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Herkommer K, Kuefer R, Gschwend JE, Hautmann RE, Volkmer BG (2004) Pathological T0 prostate cancer without neoadjuvant therapy: clinical presentation and follow-up. Eur Urol 45(1):36–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Park J, Jeong IG, Bang JK, Cho YM, Ro JY, Hong JH, Ahn H, Kim CS (2010) Preoperative clinical and pathological characteristics of pT0 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy. Korean J Urol 51(6):386–390

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thwaini A, Anjum F, Kalubac J, Shergill IS, Lewi HJ (2004) ‘Vanishing’ prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: incidence and long-term follow-up in 38 cases. BJU Int 94(7):1145–1146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Trpkov K, Gao Y, Hay R, Yimaz A (2006) No residual cancer on radical prostatectomy after positive 10-core biopsy: incidence, biopsy findings, and DNA specimen identity analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130(6):811–816

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Greene FLPD, Fleaming ID et al (2002) American joint committee on cancer, manual for staging cancer. 6th edition New York, Springer: 337–346

  19. Chan NN (2000) A vanishing pituitary mass. Postgrad Med J 76(901):720–729–731

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kommu S (2004) A model to explain the ‘vanishing’ prostate: the curative biopsy theory. BJU Int 94(6):939–940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Saleh FH, Crotty KA, Hersey P, Menzies SW, Rahman W (2003) Autonomous histopathological regression of primary tumours associated with specific immune responses to cancer antigens. J Pathol 200(3):383–395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yamashita Y, Kumabe T, Shimizu H, Ezura M, Tominaga T (2004) Spontaneous regression of a primary cerebral tumor following vasospasm caused by subarachnoid haemorrhage due to rupture of an intracranial aneurysm: case report. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 44(4):187–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Suba EJPJ, Raab SS (2007) Patient identification error among prostate needle core biopsy specimens: are we ready for a DNA time-out? J Urol 178:1245–1248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jentzmik F, Krause H, Reichelt U, Schrader AJ, Schrader M, Baumunk D, Cash H, Miller K, Schostak M (2012) GSTP1 CpG island hypermethylation for DNA-based detection of occult tumor cells in surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 30(4):541–546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Goldstein NS, Begin LR, Grody WW, Novak JM, Qian J, Bostwick DG (1995) Minimal or no cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Report of 13 cases of the “vanishing cancer phenomenon”. Am J Surg Pathol 19(9):1002–1009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Humphrey PA (1993) Complete histologic serial sectioning of a prostate gland with adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 17(5):468–472

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Egevad L, Algaba F, Berney DM, Boccon-Gibod L, Griffiths DF, Lopez-Beltran A, Mikuz G, Varma M, Montironi R (2008) Handling and reporting of radical prostatectomy specimens in Europe: a web-based survey by the European network of uropathology (ENUP). Histopathology 53(3):333–339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Capitanio U, Briganti A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Salonia A, Freschi M, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2011) When should we expect no residual tumor (pT0) once we submit incidental T1a–b prostate cancers to radical prostatectomy? Int J Urol 18(2):148–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bessede T, Soulie M, Mottet N, Rebillard X, Peyromaure M, Ravery V, Salomon L (2012) Status and medicolegal implications in France pT0 stage of prostate cancer: a study by the CC-AFU. Prog Urol 22(16):1021–1025

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ramsey SD, Zeliadt SB, Fedorenko CR, Blough DK, Moinpour CM, Hall IJ, Smith JL, Ekwueme DU, Fairweather ME, Thompson IM, Keane TE, Penson DF (2011) Patient preferences and urologist recommendations among local-stage prostate cancer patients who present for initial consultation and second opinions. World J Urol 29(1):3–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Audrey Riou and Caroline Taou for DNA extraction and Lorna Saint Ange for editing.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical standard

The study was declared and approved by the Comité de Protection des Personnes –Ile-de-France XI on 18 May 2009 under the protocol number 09-021 as “Changement substantiel de finalité d’une collection d’échantillons biologiques”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Paris Sud University Hospital of Bicetre, 94270, Le Kremlin Bicetre, France

    Thomas Bessede

  2. UPRES 4122, University Paris Sud, 94270, Le Kremlin Bicetre, France

    Thomas Bessede

  3. Department of Molecular Genetics, University Hospital Henri Mondor, 94000, Creteil, France

    Emmanuelle Girodon & Annick Le Floch

  4. Department of Pathology, University Hospital Henri Mondor, 94000, Creteil, France

    Yves Allory & Karen Leroy

  5. Department of Urology, University Hospital Henri Mondor, 94000, Creteil, France

    Laurent Salomon

Authors
  1. Thomas Bessede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuelle Girodon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yves Allory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Annick Le Floch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen Leroy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laurent Salomon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Bessede.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bessede, T., Girodon, E., Allory, Y. et al. DNA comparison between operative and biopsy specimens to investigate stage pT0 after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 32, 899–904 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1278-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1278-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation