Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tumor extent in radical prostatectomy specimens: is it an independent prognostic factor for biochemical (PSA) progression following surgery?

  • Urology – Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The tumor volume or extent measurement in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens is time-consuming and technically difficult. We aimed at studying the independent prognostic value of tumor extent for biochemical progression-free following RP once it is controversial.

Methods

This retrospective study was based on 305 consecutive patients submitted to RP. In whole-mount and totally embedded surgical specimens, tumor extent was evaluated with a point-count semi-quantitative method and correlated to several clinical and pathological variables. Biochemical progression was defined as PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/ml; time to progression-free outcome was studied using the Kaplan–Meier product-limit analysis and univariate and multivariate analyses using the Cox stepwise logistic regression.

Results

More extensive tumors showed significantly higher preoperative PSA (P < 0.01), higher clinical stage (P = 0.03), higher positive surgical margins (P < 0.01), higher pathological stage (P < 0.01), and higher Gleason score on needle biopsies (P < 0.01) and on surgical specimens (P < 0.01). On univariate analysis, biochemical progression correlated with tumor extension (P < 0.01), preoperative PSA (P < 0.01), Gleason score on needle biopsies (P = 0.02) and on surgical specimens (P < 0.01), positive surgical margins (P = 0.01), and pathological stage (P = 0.01). There was no difference related to time of biochemical recurrence comparing less extensive with more extensive tumors (P = 0.20). In multivariate analysis, tumor extent was not predictive of biochemical progression combined to any one of the variables studied (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Tumor extent did not provide in our study additional predictive information for biochemical progression following RP beyond preoperative PSA, Gleason score, positive surgical margins, and pathological stage.

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

References

  1. Humphrey PA, Vollmer RT (1990) Intraglandular tumor extent and prognosis in prostatic carcinoma: Application of a grid method to prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 21:799–804

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, Sigal BM, Johnstone IM (1999) Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. JAMA 281:1395–1400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Carvalhal GF, Humphrey PA, Thorson P, Yan Y, Ramos CG, Catalona WJ (2000) Visual estimate of the percentage of carcinoma is an independent predictor of prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 89:1308–1314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Humphrey P, Vollmer RT (1988) The ratio of prostate chips with cancer: A new measure of tumor extent and its relationship to grade and prognosis. Hum Pathol 19:411–418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McNeal JE, Bostwick DG, Kindrachuk RA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1986) Patterns of progression in prostate cancer. Lancet 1:60–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Epstein JI, Oesterling JE, Walsh PC (1988) Tumor volume versus percentage of specimen involved by tumor correlated with progression in stage A prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 139:980–984

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Partin AW, Epstein JI, Cho KR, Gittelsohn AM, Walsh PC (1989) Morphometric measurement of tumor volume and per cent of gland involvement as predictors of pathological stage in clinical stage B prostate cancer. J Urol 141:341–345

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. McNeal JE, Price HM, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA (1988) Stage A versus stage B adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Morphological comparison and biological significance. J Urol 139:61–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW, Walsh PC (1993) Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of followup. J Urol 149:1478–1481

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Salomon L, Levrel O, Anastasiadis AG, Irani J, De La Taille A, Saint F et al (2003) Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: A multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors. Eur Urol 43:39–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Billis A, Magna LA, Ferreira U (2003) Correlation between tumor extent in radical prostatectomies and preoperative PSA, histological grade, surgical margins, and extraprostatic extension: Application of a new practical method for tumor extent evaluation. Int Braz J Urol 29:113–119

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cantrell BB, DeKlerk DP, Eggleston JC, Boitnott JK, Walsh PC (1981) Pathologic factors that influence prognosis in stage A prostatic cancer: The influence of extent versus grade. J Urol 125:516–520

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Humphrey PA, Vollmer RT (1997) Percentage carcinoma as a measure of prostatic tumor size in radical prostatectomy tissues. Mod Pathol 10:326–333

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Renshaw AA, Chang H, DÁmico AV (1997) Estimation of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens in routine clinical practice. Am J Clin Pathol 107:704–708

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Renshaw AA, Richie JR, Loughlin KR, Jiroutek M, Chung A, D’Amico AV (1999) Maximum diameter of prostatic carcinoma is a simple, inexpensive, and independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen failure in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 111:641–644

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bostwick DG, Montironi R (1997) Evaluating radical prostatectomy specimens: Therapeutic and prognostic importance. Virchows Arch 430:1–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Walsh PC (1993) Adenocarcinoma of the prostate invading the seminal vesicle: Definition and relation of tumor volume, grade and margins of resection to prognosis. J Urol 149:1040–1045

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Billis A, Freitas LLL, Magna LA, Samara AB, Ferreira U (2004) Prostate cancer with bladder neck involvement: Pathologic findings with application of a new practical method for tumor extent evaluation and recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 36:363–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT, The Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group (1974) Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 111:58–64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gleason DF (1977) Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma. In: Tannenbaum M (ed) Urologic pathology. The prostate. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 171–198

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D’Amico AV, Dmochowski RR et al (2007) Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: The American Urological Association prostate guidelines for localized prostate cancer update panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 177:540–545

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rampersaud EN, Sun L, Moul JW, Madden J, Freedland SJ (2008) Percent tumor involvement and risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 180:571–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ et al (2009) Should pathologists routinely report prostate tumour volume? The prognostic value of tumour volume in prostate cancer. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.027

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, SP, Brazil

    Athanase Billis, Luciana Meirelles & Leandro L. Freitas

  2. Medical Genetics and Statistics, School of Medicine, University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, SP, Brazil

    Luis A. Magna

  3. Urology, School of Medicine, University of Campinas (Unicamp), Campinas, SP, Brazil

    Ubirajara Ferreira & Leonardo O. Reis

Authors
  1. Athanase Billis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luciana Meirelles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leandro L. Freitas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luis A. Magna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ubirajara Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Leonardo O. Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonardo O. Reis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Billis, A., Meirelles, L., Freitas, L.L. et al. Tumor extent in radical prostatectomy specimens: is it an independent prognostic factor for biochemical (PSA) progression following surgery?. Int Urol Nephrol 43, 417–422 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-010-9818-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-010-9818-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation