Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measurements of cancer extent in a conservatively treated prostate cancer biopsy cohort

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The optimal method for measuring cancer extent in prostate biopsy specimens is unknown. Seven hundred forty-four patients diagnosed between 1990 and 1996 with prostate cancer and managed conservatively were identified. The clinical end point was death from prostate cancer. The extent of cancer was measured in terms of number of cancer cores (NCC), percentage of cores with cancer (PCC), total length of cancer (LCC) and percentage length of cancer in the cores (PLC). These were correlated with prostate cancer mortality, in univariate and multivariate analysis including Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). All extent of cancer variables were significant predictors of prostate cancer death on univariate analysis: NCC, hazard ration (HR) = 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04–1.28, P = 0.011; PPC, HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.01–1.02, P < 0.0001; LCC, HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01–1.03, P = 0.002; PLC, HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.01–1.02, P = 0.0001. In multivariate analysis including Gleason score and baseline PSA, PCC and PLC were both independently significant P = 0.004 and P = 0.012, respectively, and added further information to that provided by PSA and Gleason score, whereas NNC and LCC were no longer significant (P = 0.5 and P = 0.3 respectively). In a final model, including both extent of cancer variables, PCC was the stronger, adding more value than PLC (χ 2 (1df) = 7.8, P = 0.005, χ 2 (1df) = 0.5, P = 0.48 respectively). Measurements of disease burden in needle biopsy specimens are significant predictors of prostate-cancer-related death. The percentage of positive cores appeared the strongest predictor and was stronger than percentage length of cancer in the cores.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pelzer AE, Colleselli D, Bektic J et al (2008) Clinical and pathological features of screen vs non-screen-detected prostate cancers: is there a difference? BJU Int 102:24–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith DS, Humphrey PA, Catalona WJ (1997) The early detection of prostate carcinoma with prostate specific antigen: the Washington University experience. Cancer 80:1852–1856

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartsch G, Horninger W, Klocker H et al (2008) Tyrol prostate cancer demonstration project: early detection, treatment, outcome, incidence and mortality. BJU Int 101:809–816

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Loeb S, Roehl KA, Helfand BT et al (2008) Complications of open radical retropubic prostatectomy in potential candidates for active monitoring. Urology 72:887–891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB et al (2007) Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 69:1095–1101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cuzick J, Fisher G, Kattan MW et al (2006) Long-term outcome among men with conservatively treated localised prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 95:1186–1194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (1999) Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:168–172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M et al (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271:368–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nelson CP, Dunn RL, Wei JT et al (2003) Contemporary preoperative parameters predict cancer-free survival after radical prostatectomy: a tool to facilitate treatment decisions. Urol Oncol 21:213–218

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK et al (2003) Percent of prostate needle biopsy cores with cancer is significant independent predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence following radical prostatectomy: results from SEARCH database. J Urol 169:2136–2141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Csathy GS et al (2003) Comparison of percentage of total prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer to percentage of cores with cancer for predicting PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy: results from the SEARCH database. Urology 61:742–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goto Y, Ohori M, Arakawa A et al (1996) Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. J Urol 156:1059–1063

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Graefen M, Noldus J, Pichlmeier U et al (1999) Early prostate-specific antigen relapse after radical retropubic prostatectomy: prediction on the basis of preoperative and postoperative tumor characteristics. Eur Urol 36:21–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gretzer MB, Epstein JI, Pound CR et al (2002) Substratification of stage T1C prostate cancer based on the probability of biochemical recurrence. Urology 60:1034–1039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB et al (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Suardi N, Capitanio U, Chun FK et al (2008) Currently used criteria for active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of pathologic features. Cancer 113:2068–2072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Conti SL, Dall’era M, Fradet V et al (2009) Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 181:1628–1633, discussion 1633–1624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Isbarn H, Karakiewicz PI, Ahyai SA et al (2009) Differences in histopathological and biochemical outcomes in patients with low Gleason score prostate cancer. BJU International 105:818–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Peller PA, Young DC, Marmaduke DP et al (1995) Sextant prostate biopsies. A histopathologic correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer 75:530–538

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wills ML, Sauvageot J, Partin AW et al (1998) Ability of sextant biopsies to predict radical prostatectomy stage. Urology 51:759–764

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Huland H, Hammerer P, Henke RP et al (1996) Preoperative prediction of tumor heterogeneity and recurrence after radical prostatectomy for localized prostatic carcinoma with digital rectal, examination prostate specific antigen and the results of 6 systematic biopsies. J Urol 155:1344–1347

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Badalament RA, Miller MC, Peller PA et al (1996) An algorithm for predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen level. J Urol 156:1375–1380

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tigrani VS, Bhargava V, Shinohara K et al (1999) Number of positive systematic sextant biopsies predicts surgical margin status at radical prostatectomy. Urology 54:689–693

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ravery V, Chastang C, Toublanc M et al (2000) Percentage of cancer on biopsy cores accurately predicts extracapsular extension and biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy for T1–T2 prostate cancer. Eur Urol 37:449–455

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Conrad S, Graefen M, Pichlmeier U et al (1998) Systematic sextant biopsies improve preoperative prediction of pelvic lymph node metastases in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 159:2023–2029

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Yoon JH, Chen MH, Renshaw AA et al (2002) Predictive factor analysis as the basis for the clinical utility of percent positive prostate biopsies in patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Urology 60:454–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod LA, Dauge-Geffroy MC et al (1994) Systematic biopsies accurately predict extracapsular extension of prostate cancer and persistent/recurrent detectable PSA after radical prostatectomy. Urology 44:371–376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mortensen MM, Mortensen PS, Borre M (2009) Percentage of tumour-positive biopsy cores: an independent predictor of extraprostatic disease. Scand J Urol Nephrol 43:109–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lotan Y, Shariat SF, Khoddami SM et al (2004) The percent of biopsy cores positive for cancer is a predictor of advanced pathological stage and poor clinical outcomes in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol 171:2209–2214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bostwick DG, Qian J, Bergstralh E et al (1996) Prediction of capsular perforation and seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer. J Urol 155:1361–1367

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Brimo F, Vollmer RT, Corcos J et al (2008) Prognostic value of various morphometric measurements of tumour extent in prostate needle core tissue. Histopathology 53:177–183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Harnden P, Shelley MD, Naylor B et al (2008) Does the extent of carcinoma in prostatic biopsies predict prostate-specific antigen recurrence? A systematic review. Eur Urol 54:728–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bismar TA, Lewis JS Jr, Vollmer RT et al (2003) 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 27:432–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Briganti A, Chun FK, Hutterer GC et al (2007) Systematic assessment of the ability of the number and percentage of positive biopsy cores to predict pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 52:733–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (2000) Clinical utility of the percentage of positive prostate biopsies in defining biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:1164–1172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB et al (2000) Combination of the preoperative PSA level, biopsy Gleason score, percentage of positive biopsies, and MRI T-stage to predict early PSA failure in men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 55:572–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Presti JC Jr, Shinohara K, Bacchetti P et al (1998) Positive fraction of systematic biopsies predicts risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy. Urology 52:1079–1084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Salomon L et al (2009) The role of biopsy core number in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol 56:891–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Freedland SJ, Terris MK, Csathy GS et al (2004) Preoperative model for predicting prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy using percent of biopsy tissue with cancer, biopsy Gleason grade and serum prostate specific antigen. J Urol 171:2215–2220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ravery V, Schmid HP, Toublanc M et al (1996) Is the percentage of cancer in biopsy cores predictive of extracapsular disease in T1–T2 prostate carcinoma? Cancer 78:1079–1084

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Linson PW, Lee AK, Doytchinova T et al (2002) Percentage of core lengths involved with prostate cancer: does it add to the percentage of positive prostate biopsies in predicting postoperative prostate-specific antigen outcome for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer? Urology 59:704–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Okotie OT, Aronson WJ, Wieder JA et al (2004) Predictors of metastatic disease in men with biochemical failure following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 171:2260–2264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Miyake H, Hara I, Kurahashi T et al (2006) Clinicopathological features of patients with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy without progressive rise in serum prostate-specific antigen. Urol Int 77:200–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Taplin ME (2003) Biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) relapse: an oncologist’s perspective. Rev Urol 5(Suppl 3):S3–S13

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Cancer Research UK, a Specialised Programme of Research Excellence (SPORE) grant from the US National Cancer Institute (USA), Orchid and The David Koch Foundation. Funding bodies had no involvement in the design and conduct of the study; in collection management, analysis and interpretation of the data; or in preparation, review and approval of the paper.

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Molecular Oncology and Imaging, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Ramzi Rajab, Tim Oliver & Daniel M. Berney

  2. Cancer Research UK Department of Epidemiology, Mathematics and Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Gabrielle Fisher & Jack Cuzick

  3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Michael W. Kattan

  4. Department of Cellular Pathology and Molecular Genetics, Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK

    Christopher S. Foster

  5. King’s College London, Thames Cancer Registry, London, UK

    Henrik Møller

  6. Departments of Pathology and Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, New York, USA

    Victor Reuter & Peter Scardino

  7. Centre for Molecular Oncology and Imaging St. Bartholomew’s Medical School, Queen Mary, University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK

    Daniel M. Berney

Authors
  1. Ramzi Rajab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabrielle Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael W. Kattan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher S. Foster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tim Oliver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Henrik Møller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Victor Reuter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Peter Scardino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jack Cuzick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Daniel M. Berney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the Transatlantic Prostate Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel M. Berney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rajab, R., Fisher, G., Kattan, M.W. et al. Measurements of cancer extent in a conservatively treated prostate cancer biopsy cohort. Virchows Arch 457, 547–553 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-010-0971-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-010-0971-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation