Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pathologic Implications of Prostate Biopsy

  • Chapter
Book cover Prostate Biopsy

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

  • 895 Accesses

Abstract

Information included in pathology reports has a critical role in patient management. Descriptions of samples positive for prostate cancer should include information on the location of relevant cores, histologic subtypes, and Gleason scoring although the calculation and interpretation of this scoring method is currently under debate. The amount of cancer found in the biopsy cores, extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion, and perineural invasion must be documented. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical glands suspicious for prostate cancer should be reported because their presence is associated with prostate cancer detection on repeat biopsy. Emerging molecular prognostic markers are extremely promising for prostate cancer diagnosis. Whereas many types of molecular evaluation are already in widespread use, others require large, prospective studies to be validated for inclusion in routine practice.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bostwick DG, Iczkowski KA. Minimal criteria for the diagnosis of prostate cancer on needle biopsy. Ann Diagn Pathol 1997;l(2):104–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Epstein JI. Diagnosis and reporting of limited adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy. Mod Pathol 2004;17(3):307–315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thorson P, Humphrey PA. Minimal adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsy tissue. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114(6):896–909.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 2006;175(5):1605–1612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Badalament RA, Miller MC, Peller PA, et al. An algorithm for predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen level. J Urol 1996;156(4):1375–1380.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Carlson GD, Campagna RL, Narayan P, Tewari A. Presurgical staging of prostate cancer. Infect Urol 1999;12(1):22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Naya Y, Slaton JW, Troncoso P, Okihara K, Babaian RJ. Tumor length and location of cancer on biopsy predict for side specific extraprostatic cancer extension. J Urol 2004;171(3):1093–1097.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sanwick JM, Dalkin BL, Nagle RB. Accuracy of prostate needle biopsy in predicting extracapsular tumor extension at radical retropubic prostatectomy: application in selecting patients for nerve-sparing surgery. Urology 1998;52(5):814–818; discussion 818–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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):820–834.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Allen EA, Kahane H, Epstein JI. Repeat biopsy strategies for men with atypical diagnoses on initial prostate needle biopsy. Urology 1998;52(5):803–807.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kao J, Upton M, Zhang P, Rosen S. Individual prostate biopsy core embedding facilitates maximal tissue representation. J Urol 2002;168(2):496–499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Epstein JI, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, McNeal JE, Sesterhenn IA, Troncoso P, Wheeler TM. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 1995;19(8):873–886.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Murphy WM, Ramsey J, Soloway MS. A better nuclear fixative for diagnostic bladder and prostate biopsies. J Urol Pathol 1993;l:79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nuovo GJ, Richart RM. Buffered formalin is the superior fixative for the detection of HPV DNA by in situ hybridization analysis. Am J Pathol 1989;134(4):837–842.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Glickman JN, Ormsby AH, Gramlich TL, Goldblum JR, Odze RD. Interinstitutional variability and effect of tissue fixative on the interpretation of a Barrett cytokeratin 7/20 immunoreactivity pattern in Barrett esophagus. Hum Pathol 2005;36(1):58–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Delahunt B, Nacey JN. Broadsheet number 45: thin core biopsy of prostate. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australia. Pathology 1998;30(3):247–256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Varma M, Linden MD, Amin MB. Effect of formalin fixation and epitope retrieval techniques on antibody 34betaE12 immunostaining of prostatic tissues. Mod Pathol 1999;12(5):472–478.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, et al. Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 2005;(216):20–33.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111(1):58–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang XJ, Lecksell K, Potter SR, Epstein JI. Significance of small foci of Gleason score 7 or greater prostate cancer on needle biopsy. Urology 1999;54(3):528–532.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347(11):781–789.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ohori M, Kattan MW, Koh H, et al. Predicting the presence and side of extracapsular extension: a nomogram for staging prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;171(5):1844–1849; discussion 1849.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gancarczyk KJ, Wu H, McLeod DG, et al. Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prostatectomy: the Center for Prostate Disease Research nomograms. Urology 2003;61(3):589–595.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Combined modality staging of prostate carcinoma and its utility in predicting pathologic stage and postoperative prostate specific antigen failure. Urology 1997;49(3A Suppl):23–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pisansky TM, Kahn MJ, Rasp GM, Cha SS, Haddock MG, Bostwick DG. A multiple prognostic index predictive of disease outcome after irradiation for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1997;79(2):337–344.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated, confined tumors. J Urol 2003;170(5):1792–1797.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvic lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1990;66(6):1225–1233.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC. Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with longterm follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20(3):286–292.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989;142(1):71–74; discussion 74–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gaudin PB, Epstein JI. Adenosis of the prostate. Histologic features in transurethral resection specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 1994;18(9):863–870.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29(9):1228–1242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Epstein JI. Gleason score 2–4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24(4):477–478.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fleshner NE, Cookson MS, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a strategy to improve the reliability of needle biopsy grading in patients with well-differentiated prostate cancer. Urology 1998;52(4):659–662.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI. Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 2001;32(1):81–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Humphrey PA, Kaleem Z, Swanson PE, Vollmer RT. Pseudohyperplastic prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1998;22(10):1239–1246.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nelson RS, Epstein JI. Prostatic carcinoma with abundant xanthomatous cytoplasm. Foamy gland carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20(4):419–426.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cina SJ, Epstein JI. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate with atrophic features. Am J Surg Pathol 1997;21(3):289–295.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shannon RL, Ro JY, Grignon DJ, et al. Sarcomatoid carcinoma of the prostate. A clinicopathologic study of 12 patients. Cancer 1992;69(11):2676–2682.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Parwani AV, Kronz JD, Genega EM, Gaudin P, Chang S, Epstein JI. Prostate carcinoma with squamous differentiation: an analysis of 33 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28(5):651–657.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Oesterling JE, Hauzeur CG, Farrow GM. Small cell anaplastic carcinoma of the prostate: a clinical, pathological and immunohistological study of 27 patients. J Urol 1992;147(3 Pt 2):804–807.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Brinker DA, Potter SR, Epstein JI. Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate diagnosed on needle biopsy: correlation with clinical and radical prostatectomy findings and progression. Am J Surg Pathol 1999;23(12):1471–1479.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Grignon DJ. Unusual subtypes of prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 2004;17(3):316–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Randolph TL, Amin MB, Ro JY, Ayala AG. Histologie variants of adenocarcinoma and other carcinomas of prostate: pathologic criteria and clinical significance. Mod Pathol 1997;10(6):612–629.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Spires SE, Cibull ML, Wood DP Jr, Miller S, Spires SM, Banks ER. Gleason histologic grading in prostatic carcinoma. Correlation of 18-gauge core biopsy with prostatectomy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994;118(7):705–708.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, Epstein JI. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol 1997;21(5):566–576.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bostwick DG. Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. Am J Surg Pathol 1994;18(8):796–803.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. San Francisco IF, DeWolf WC, Rosen S, Upton M, Olumi AF. Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;169(1):136–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. 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 2000;55(4):572–577.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90(10):766–771.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Narayan P, Gajendran V, Taylor SP, et al. The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy-based staging, preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score in prediction of final pathologic diagnosis in prostate cancer. Urology 1995;46(2):205–212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sebo TJ, Cheville JC, Riehle DL, et al. Predicting prostate carcinoma volume and stage at radical prostatectomy by assessing needle biopsy specimens for percent surface area and cores positive for carcinoma, perineural invasion, Gleason score, DNA ploidy and proliferation, and preoperative serum prostate specific antigen: a report of 454 cases. Cancer 2001;91(11):2196–2204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wills ML, Sauvageot J, Partin AW, Gurganus R, Epstein JI. Ability of sextant biopsies to predict radical prostatectomy stage. Urology 1998;51(5):759–764.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod LA, Dauge-Geffroy MC, et al. Systematic biopsies accurately predict extracapsular extension of prostate cancer and persistent/ recurrent detectable PSA after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1994;44(3):371–376.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Peller PA, Young DC, Marmaduke DP, Marsh WL, Badalament RA. Sextant prostate biopsies. A histopathologic correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer 1995;75(2):530–538.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Huland H, Graefen M, Haese A, et al. Prediction of tumor heterogeneity in localized prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 2002;29(1):213–222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Terris MK, Haney DJ, Johnstone IM, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Prediction of prostate cancer volume using prostate-specific antigen levels, transrectal ultrasound, and systematic sextant biopsies. Urology 1995;45(1):75–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Conrad S, Graefen M, Pichlmeier U, et al. Prospective validation of an algorithm with systematic sextant biopsy to predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 2002;167(2 Pt 1):521–525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Lewis JS Jr, Vollmer RT, Humphrey PA. Carcinoma extent in prostate needle biopsy tissue in the prediction of whole gland tumor volume in a screening population. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118(3):442–450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ackerman DA, Barry JM, Wicklund RA, Olson N, Lowe BA. Analysis of risk factors associated with prostate cancer extension to the surgical margin and pelvic node metastasis at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1993;150(6):1845–1850.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Tigrani VS, Bhargava V, Shinohara K, Presti JC Jr. Number of positive systematic sextant biopsies predicts surgical margin status at radical prostatectomy. Urology 1999;54(4):689–693.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Presti JC Jr, Shinohara K, Bacchetti P, Tigrani V, Bhargava V. Positive fraction of systematic biopsies predicts risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1998;52(6):1079–1084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bostwick DG, Qian J, Bergstralh E, et al. Prediction of capsular perforation and seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer. J Urol 1996;155(4):1361–1367.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Cupp MR, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Oesterling JE. The volume of prostate cancer in the biopsy specimen cannot reliably predict the quantity of cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen on an individual basis. J Urol 1995;153(5):1543–1548.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ravery V, Chastang C, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L, Delmas V. Percentage of cancer on biopsy cores accurately predicts extracapsular extension and biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy for T1–T2 prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2000;37(4):449–455.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Ukimura O, Troncoso P, Ramirez EI, Babaian RJ. Prostate cancer staging: correlation between ultrasound determined tumor contact length and pathologically confirmed extraprostatic extension. J Urol 1998;159(4):1251–1259.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rubin MA, Bassily N, Sanda M, Montie J, Strawderman MS, Wojno K. Relationship and significance of greatest percentage of tumor and perineural invasion on needle biopsy in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24(2):183–189.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bruce RG, Rankin WR, Cibull ML, Rayens MK, Banks ER, Wood DP Jr. Single focus of adenocarcinoma in the prostate biopsy specimen is not predictive of the pathologic stage of disease. Urology 1996;48(1):75–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Dietrick DD, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Core cancer length in ultrasound-guided systematic sextant biopsies: a preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer volume. Urology 1995;45(6):987–992.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Wang X, Brannigan RE, Rademaker AW, McVary KT, Oyasu R. One core positive prostate biopsy is a poor predictor of cancer volume in the radical prostatectomy specimen. J Urol 1997;158(4):1431–1435.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Weldon VE, Tavel FR, Neuwirth H, Cohen R. Failure of focal prostate cancer on biopsy to predict focal prostate cancer: the importance of prevalence. J Urol 1995;154(3):1074–1077.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Csathy GS, et al. 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 2003;61(4):742–747.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Cohen RJ, Stables S. Intraprostatic fat. Hum Pathol 1998;29(4):424–425.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Debras B, Guillonneau B, Bougaran J, Chambon E, Vallancien G. Prognostic significance of seminal vesicle invasion on the radical prostatectomy specimen. Rationale for seminal vesicle biopsies. Eur Urol 1998;33(3):271–277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Zhou M, Epstein JI. The reporting of prostate cancer on needle biopsy: prognostic and therapeutic implications and the utility of diagnostic markers. Pathology 2003;35(6):472–479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. de la Taille A, Rubin MA, Bagiella E, et al. Can perineural invasion on prostate needle biopsy predict prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy? J Urol 1999;162(1):103–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Stone NN, Stock RG, Parikh D, Yeghiayan P, Unger P. Perineural invasion and seminal vesicle involvement predict pelvic lymph node metastasis in men with localized carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1998;160(5):1722–1726.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Holmes GF, Walsh PC, Pound CR, Epstein JI. Excision of the neurovascular bundle at radical prostatectomy in cases with perineural invasion on needle biopsy. Urology 1999;53(4):752–756.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Bonin SR, Hanlon AL, Lee WR, Movsas B, al-Saleem TI, Hanks GE. Evidence of increased failure in the treatment of prostate carcinoma patients who have perineural invasion treated with three-dimensional conformai radiation therapy. Cancer 1997;79(1):75–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Quinn DI, Henshall SM, Brenner PC, et al. Prognostic significance of preoperative factors in localized prostate carcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy: importance of percentage of biopsies that contain tumor and the presence of biopsy perineural invasion. Cancer 2003;97(8):1884–1893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Beard CJ, Chen MH, Cote K, et al. Perineural invasion is associated with increased relapse after external beam radiotherapy for men with low-risk prostate cancer and may be a marker for occult, high-grade cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58(1):19–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Beard C, Schultz D, Loffredo M, et al. Perineural invasion associated with increased cancer-specific mortality after external beam radiation therapy for men with low-and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;66(2):403–407.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. 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 2000;18(6):1164–1172.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Weight CJ, Ciezki JP, Reddy CA, Zhou M, Klein EA. Perineural invasion on prostate needle biopsy does not predict biochemical failure following brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;65(2):347–350.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Maru N, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Prognostic significance of the diameter of perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol 2001;32(8):828–833.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Bostwick DG, Qian J. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol 2004;17(3):360–379.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Goeman L, Joniau S, Ponette D, et al. Is low-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia a risk factor for cancer? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2003;6(4):305–310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Aboseif S, Shinohara K, Weidner N, Narayan P, Carroll PR. The significance of prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia. Br J Urol 1995;76(3):355–359.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Langer JE, Rovner ES, Coleman BG, et al. Strategy for repeat biopsy of patients with prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia detected by prostate needle biopsy. J Urol 1996;155(1):228–231.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Raviv G, Janssen T, Zlotta AR, Descamps F, Verhest A, Schulman CC. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: influence of clinical and pathological data on the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 1996;156(3):1050–1054; discussion 1054–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Shepherd D, Keetch DW, Humphrey PA, Smith DS, Stahl D. Repeat biopsy strategy in men with isolated prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on prostate needle biopsy. J Urol 1996;156(2 Pt 1):460–462; discussion 462–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Epstein JI, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 1995;19(8):873–886.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Fowler JE Jr, Bigler SA, Miles D, Yalkut DA. Predictors of first repeat biopsy cancer detection with suspected local stage prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;163(3):813–818.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Kronz JD, Allan CH, Shaikh AA, Epstein JI. Predicting cancer following a diagnosis of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on needle biopsy: data on men with more than one follow-up biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25(8):1079–1085.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Roscigno M, Scattoni V, Freschi M, et al. Monofocal and plurifocal high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on extended prostate biopsies: factors predicting cancer detection on extended repeat biopsy. Urology 2004;63(6):1105–1110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Abdel-Khalek M, El-Baz M, Ibrahiem el-H. Predictors of prostate cancer on extended biopsy in patients with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a multivariate analysis model. BJU Int 2004;94(4):528–533.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Lefkowitz GK, Taneja SS, Brown J, Melamed J, Lepor H. Followup interval prostate biopsy 3 years after diagnosis of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is associated with high likelihood of prostate cancer, independent of change in prostate specific antigen levels. J Urol 2002;168(4 Pt 1):1415–1418.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Maatman TJ, Papp SR, Carothers GG, Shockley KF. The critical role of patient follow-up after receiving a diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2001;4(1):63–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Park S, Shinohara K, Grossfeld GD, Carroll PR. Prostate cancer detection in men with prior high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical prostate biopsy. J Urol 2001;165(5):1409–1414.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Naya Y, Ayala AG, Tamboli P, Babaian RJ. Can the number of cores with high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia predict cancer in men who undergo repeat biopsy? Urology 2004;63(3):503–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Kamoi K, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Strategy for repeat biopsy in patients with high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. J Urol 2000;163(3):819–823.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Borboroglu PG, Sur RL, Roberts JL, Amling CL. Repeat biopsy strategy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation or high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on initial prostate needle biopsy. J Urol 2001;166(3):866–870.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE. Prostate needle biopsy reporting: how are the surgical members of the Society of Urologic Oncology using pathology reports to guide treatment of prostate cancer patients? Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28(7):946–952.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Veltri RW, Miller MC, Mangold LA, O’Dowd GJ, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Prediction of pathological stage in patients with clinical stage T1c prostate cancer: the new challenge. J Urol 2002;168(1):100–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Schlesinger C, Bostwick DG, Iczkowski KA. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation: predictive value for cancer in current practice. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29(9):1201–1207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Iczkowski KA, Bassler TJ, Schwob VS, et al. Diagnosis of “suspicious for malignancy” in prostate biopsies: predictive value for cancer. Urology 1998; 51(5):749–757; discussion 757–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Freedland SJ, deGregorio F, Sacoolidge JC, et al. Preoperative p27 status is an independent predictor of prostate specific antigen failure following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;169(4):1325–1330.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Vis AN, Noordzij MA, Fitoz K, Wildhagen MF, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH. Prognostic value of cell cycle proteins p27(kip1) and MIB-1, and the cell adhesion protein CD44s in surgically treated patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 2000;164(6):2156–2161.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Diaz JI, Mora LB, Austin PF, et al. Predictability of PSA failure in prostate cancer by computerized cytometric assessment of tumoral cell proliferation. Urology 1999;53(5):931–938.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Oxley JD, Winkler MH, Parry K, Brewster S, Abbott C, Gillatt DA. p53 and bc1-2 immunohistochemestry in preoperative biopsies as predictors of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2002;89(1):27–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Brewster SF, Oxley JD, Trivella M, Abbott CD, Gillatt DA. Preoperative p53, bcl-2, CD44 and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry as predictors of biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1999;161(4):1238–1243.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Pollack A, Cowen D, Troncoso P, et al. Molecular markers of outcome after radiotherapy in patients with prostate carcinoma: Ki-67, bc1-2, bax, and bc1-x. Cancer 2003;97(7):1630–1638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Lee WH, Isaacs WB, Bova GS, Nelson WG. CG island methylation changes near the GSTP1 gene in prostatic carcinoma cells detected using the polymerase chain reaction: a new prostate cancer biomarker. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997;6(6):443–450.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Lee WH, Morton RA, Epstein JI, et al. Cytidine methylation of regulatory sequences near the pi-class glutathione S-transferase gene accompanies human prostatic carcinogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994;91(24):11733–11737.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Harden SV, Guo Z, Epstein JI, Sidransky D. Quantitative GSTP1 methylation clearly distinguishes benign prostatic tissue and limited prostate adenocarcinoma. J Urol 2003;169(3):1138–1142.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Jeronimo C, Usadel H, Henrique R, et al. Quantitation of GSTP1 methylation in non-neoplastic prostatic tissue and organ-confined prostate adenocarcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93(22):1747–1752.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Zhou M, Tokumaru Y, Sidransky D, Epstein JI. Quantitative GSTP1 methylation levels correlate with Gleason grade and tumor volume in prostate needle biopsies. J Urol 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2195–2198.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20(7):851–857.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Nguyen PL, Schultz D, Renshaw AA, et al. The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Oncol 2004;22(4):295–299.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Chan TY, Epstein JI. Patient and urologist driven second opinion of prostate needle biopsies. J Urol 2005;174(4 Pt 1):1390–1394; discussion 1394; author reply 1394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Anatomic Pathology, Urology, and Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH

    Ming Zhou MD, PhD & Cristina Magi-Galluzzi MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Ming Zhou MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Magi-Galluzzi MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Regional Urology, Cleveland Clinic Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, USA

    J. Stephen Jones MD (Chairman, Associate Professor of Surgery (Urology) (Chairman, Associate Professor of Surgery (Urology)

  2. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at CWRU, Cleveland, OH, USA

    J. Stephen Jones MD (Chairman, Associate Professor of Surgery (Urology) (Chairman, Associate Professor of Surgery (Urology)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zhou, M., Magi-Galluzzi, C. (2008). Pathologic Implications of Prostate Biopsy. In: Jones, J.S. (eds) Prostate Biopsy. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-078-6_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-078-6_17

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-790-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-60327-078-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation