Symptoms, Signs, Clinical Examination, Primary Diagnostic Methods and Disease Extension Investigations

  • Said Abdallah Al-Mamari
  • Salim Said Al-Busaidy
Chapter

Abstract

Localized PC is generally an asymptomatic disease. It may sometimes present with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Locally advanced disease may also be asymptomatic, but with time it will more likely present with urinary obstruction, urinary infections, haematuria, impotence, tenesmus, obstructive uropathy with uraemia, etc. Haematospermia is a rare symptom of PC, found in only 0.5 % of cases; but its presence should prompt screening for PC in selected patients since it has been associated with a PC diagnosis in 13.7 % of patients [1–3]. Metastatic disease generally present with complications. These may be local in keeping with locally advanced disease, distant (back pain, spontaneous fracture, paraplegia, obstructive jaundice caused by massive para-aortic and para-caval lymph nodes compressing the common bile duct) or systemic when the general health is affected by anorexia, loss of weight and anaemia.

Keywords

Lower Urinary Tract Symptom Gleason Score Prostatic Biopsy Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia Positive Core 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Han M, Brannigan RE, Antenor JA, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ. Association of hemospermia with prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2189–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ng YH, Seeley JP, Smith G. Haematospermia as a presenting symptom: outcomes of investigation in 300 men. Surgeon. 2013;11(1):35–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stefanovic KB, Gregg PC, Soung M. Evaluation and treatment of hematospermia. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(12):1421–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu X, Tang J, Yang JC, Zhang Y, Shi HY. An autopsy specimen study of benign hyperplastic nodules in the peripheral zone of the prostate. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2008;14(4):307–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tang J, Li X, Wang N, Zhang S, Lin Q, Li J, Shi H. Correlation between hypoechoic nodules on ultrasonography and benign hyperplasia in the prostatic outer gland. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(4):483–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carvalhal GF, Smith DS, Mager DE, Ramos C, Catalona WJ. Digital rectal examination for detecting prostate cancer at prostate specific antigen levels of 4 ng/ml or less. J Urol. 1999;161(3):835–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Okotie OT, Roehl KA, Han M, Loeb S, Gashti SN, Catalona WJ. Characteristics of prostate cancer detected by digital rectal examination only. Urology. 2007;70(6):1117–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mottet N, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al. Guidelines on prostate cancer. The European Association of Urology. 2014. Available from http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/1607-Prostate-Cancer_LRV3.pdf#.
  9. 9.
    Brock M, Eggert T, Palisaar RJ, Roghmann F, Braun K, Loppenberg B, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound of the prostate: adding contrast enhanced ultrasound to real- time elastography to detect histopathologically confirmed cancer. J Urol. 2012;189:93–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hovels AM, Heesakkers RA, Adang EM, Jager GJ, Strum S, Hoogevee YL, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta- analysis. Clin Radiol. 2008;63:387–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Haber GP, Crouzet S, Kamoi K, Villers A. Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 2009;74(5):1094–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR- targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US- MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy: prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013;268:461–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singh AK, Kruecker J, Xu S, Glossop N, Neeman Z, Choyke P, et al. Initial clinical experience with real- time transrectal ultrasonography- magnetic resonance imaging fusion- guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2008;101:841–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3- T MR images? Radiology. 2010;258:488–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maxeiner A, Fischer T, Stephan C, Cash H, Slowinski T, Kilic E, Durmus T. Real-time MRI/US Fusion-guided Biopsy Improves Detection Rates of Prostate Cancer in Pre-biopsied Patients. Aktuelle Urol. 2014;45(3):197–203. Mol Med Rep. 2014;9(5):1989–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang J, Xiu J, Dong Y, Wang M, Han X, Qin Y, Huang Z, Cai S, Yuan X, Liu Q. Magnetic resonance imaging-directed biopsy improves the prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness compared with a 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Mol Med Rep. 2014;9(5):1989–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, Schimmöller L, Hiester A, Godehardt E, Albers P, Antoch G, Rabenalt R. Prospective evaluation of MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. J Urol. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.090.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aron M, Rajeev TP, Gupta NP. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate: a randomized controlled study. BJU Int. 2000;85(6):682–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williamson DA, Roberts SA, Paterson DL, Sidjabat H, Silvey A, Masters J, Rice M, Freeman JT. Escherichia coli bloodstream infection after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: implications of fluoroquinolone-resistant sequence type 131 as a major causative pathogen. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(10):1406–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor S, Margolick J, Abughosh Z, Goldenberg SL, Lange D, Bowie WR, Bell R, Roscoe D, Machan L, Black P. Ciprofloxacin resistance in the faecal carriage of patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2013;111(6):946–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Losco G, Studd R, Blackmore T. Ertapenem prophylaxis reduces sepsis after transrectal biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int. 2014;113 Suppl 2:69–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gopal Rao G, Batura D. Emergency hospital admissions attributable to infective complications of prostate biopsy despite appropriate prophylaxis: need for additional infection prevention strategies? Int Urol Nephrol. 2014;46(2):309–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kehinde EO, Al-Maghrebi M, Sheikh M, Anim JT. Combined ciprofloxacin and amikacin prophylaxis in the prevention of septicemia after transrectal Ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate. J Urol. 2013;189(3):911–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adamakis I, Mitropoulos D, Haritopoulos K, Alamanis C, Stravodimos K, Giannopoulos A. Pain during transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy: a randomized prospective trial comparing periprostatic infiltration with lidocaine with the intrarectal instillation of lidocaine-prilocain cream. World J Urol. 2004;22(4):281–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Giannarini G, Mogorovich A, Valent F, Morelli G, De Maria M, Manassero F, Barbone F, Selli C. Continuing or discontinuing low-dose aspirin before transrectal prostate biopsy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Urology. 2007;70(3):501–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chowdhury R, Abbas A, Idriz S, Hoy A, Rutherford EE, Smart JM. Should warfarin or aspirin be stopped prior to prostate biopsy? An analysis of bleeding complications related to increasing sample number regimes. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(12):e64–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ihezue CU, Smart J, Dewbury KC, Mehta R, Burgess L. Biopsy of the prostate guided by transrectal ultrasound: relation between warfarin use and incidence of bleeding complications. Clin Radiol. 2005;60(4):459–63; discussion 457–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salomon L, Bastide C, Beuzeboc P, et al. Les members du CCAFU. Recommandations en Onco-Urologie 2013 du CCAFU: Cancer de la Prostate. Prog Urol. 2013;23(Suppl 2):S69–101. p. 6.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H, Frauscher F, Varkarakis J, Rogatsch H, Bartsch G, Horninger W. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among 3 protocols with 6, 10 and 15 cores. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1478–80; discussion 1480–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pinsky PF, Parnes HL, Andriole G. Mortality and complications after prostate biopsy in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening (PLCO) trial. BJU Int. 2014;113(2):254–9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dimmen M, Vlatkovic L, Hole KH, Nesland JM, Brennhovd B, Axcrona K. Transperineal prostate biopsy detects significant cancer in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and previous negative transrectal biopsies. BJU Int. 2012;110(2 Pt 2):E69–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Humphrey PA. Diagnosis of adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsy tissue. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60(1):35–42.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pavlakis K, Stravodimos K, Kapetanakis T, Gregorakis A, Athanassiadou S, Tzaida O, Constantinides C. Evaluation of routine application of P504S, 34betaE12 and p63 immunostaining on 250 prostate needle biopsy specimens. Int Urol Nephrol. 2010;42(2):325–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111(1):58–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vollmer RT. Tumour length in prostate cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130:77–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Epstein JI, Herawi M. Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol. 2006;175(3 Pt 1):820–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D, Leung CS, Kapusta LR, Srigley JR. Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 2009;182(2):485–90; discussion 490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Srigley JR, Merrimen JL, Jones G, Jamal M. Multifocal high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is still a significant risk factor for adenocarcinoma. Can Urol Assoc J. 2010;4(6):434.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Moore CK, Karikehalli S, Nazeer T, Fisher HA, Kaufman Jr RP, Mian BM. Prognostic significance of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation in the contemporary era. J Urol. 2005;173(1):70–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Salomon L, Azria D, Bastide C, Beuzeboc P, Cormier L, Cornu F, et al. Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU. Recommandations en onco-urologie : cancer de la prostate. Prog Urol. 2010;20:S217–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Walz J, Graefen M, Chun FK, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, Steuber T, Schlomm T, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI. High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series. Eur Urol. 2006;50(3):498–505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Prostate. In: Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 461–2.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lavery HJ, Brajtbord JS, Levinson AW, Nabizada-Pace F, Pollard ME, Samadi DB. Unnecessary imaging for the staging of low-risk prostate cancer is common. Urology. 2011;77(2):274–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lizée D, Ouzzane A, Villers A. Cancer de la prostate: diagnostic et bilan d’extension. EMC – Urologie. 2012;5(2):1–8. [Article 18-560-A-12].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280(11):969–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    D’Amico A, Altschuler M, Whittington R, Kao G, Malkowicz SB, Wein A. The use of clinical parameters in an interactive statistical package to predict pathological features associated with local failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Clin Perform Qual Health Care. 1993;1(4):219–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    D’Amico AV, Moul J, Carrol PR, Sun L, Lubeck D, Chen MH. Cancer specific mortality after surgery or irradiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:2163–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Said Abdallah Al-Mamari
    • 1
  • Salim Said Al-Busaidy
    • 1
  1. 1.Urology DepartmentThe Royal HospitalMuscatOman

Personalised recommendations