Back
 OJU  Vol.4 No.6 , June 2014
Single Positive Core Prostate Cancer Has Less Aggressive Pathologic Features than Multiple Positive Core Prostate Cancer but Should It Still Be Considered an Indolent Tumor?
Abstract: Introduction: A single positive core (SPC) in a prostate biopsy is usually associated with indolent prostate cancer (PCa), and is considered one active surveillance criteria. To determine if a SPC should qualify a patient for surveillance, we compared the pathological findings for SPC and multiple positive core in a matched population who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). Material and Methods: We evaluated 373 SPC patients who underwent RP (Group 1) and 375 consecutive cases with multiple positive core (Group 2) who were matched according to age, prostate weight, PSA level and clinical stage. In addition to preoperative data and epidemiological characteristics, we compared the rates of positive surgical margins (PSMs), extraprostatic extension (EPE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) according to the Gleason scores (GSs) of the biopsies. Results: Both groups were similar according age, PSA level, prostate weight and clinical stage. Group 1 had a lower PSM rate (20.9% vs 37.6%, p < 0.001), less EPE (10% vs 26%, p < 0.001) and SVI (6% vs 13.3%, p = 0.006). The PSM, EPE and SVI rates increased with increasing GS in both groups. In Group 1, a patient with a GS ≥ 8 was 3.5 times more likely to have a PSM than a patient with a GS ≤ 6 (p = 0.03); with no difference in Group 2 (p = 0.162). There were no correlations between the EPE and SVI rates and the GS in Group 1 (p = 0.273 and p = 0.95, respectively). However, in Group 2, we observed a higher rate of EPE among GS 7 than among GS ≤ 6, OR = 3.1 (p < 0.001). We also observed a higher rate of SVI among GS 7 than among GS ≤ 6 in Group 2, OR = 3.1 (p = 0.004). Conclusion: SPC PCa have reduced rates of PSM, EPE and SVI relative to multiple positive core. However, these pathologic findings were observed in 6.0% - 20.9% of SPC, especially in undifferentiated tumors. These results led us to conclude that active treatment instead of active surveillance should be considered and must be evaluated individually for SPC patients, especially those with higher GSs.
Cite this paper: Kupka, R. , Dall’Oglio, M. , Crippa, A. , Pontes, J. , Bastian Júnior, A. , Piovesan, L. , Nahas, W. and Srougi, M. (2014) Single Positive Core Prostate Cancer Has Less Aggressive Pathologic Features than Multiple Positive Core Prostate Cancer but Should It Still Be Considered an Indolent Tumor?. Open Journal of Urology, 4, 71-77. doi: 10.4236/oju.2014.46012.
References

[1]   Siegel, R., Desantis, C., Virgo, K., Stein, K., Mariotto, A., Smith, T., et al. (2012) Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Statistics, 2012. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62, 220-241.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21149

[2]   Chun, F.K., Briganti, A., Gallina, A., Hutterer, G.C., Shariat, S.F., Antebie, E., et al. (2007) Prostate Specific Antigen Improves the Ability of Clinical Stage and Biopsy Gleason Sum to Predict the Pathologic Stage at Radical Prostatectomy in the New Millenium. European Urology, 52, 1067-1074.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.03.018

[3]   Cooperberg, M.R., Broering, J.M., Litwin, M.S., Lubeck, D.P., Metha, S.S., Henning, J.M., et al. (2004) The Contemporary Management of Prostate Cancer in the United States: Lessons from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CapSURE), a National Disease Registry. Journal of Urology, 171, 1393-1401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000107247.81471.06

[4]   Mouraviev, V., Mayes, J.M. and Polascik, T.J. (2009) Pathologic Basis of Focal Therapy for Early-Stage Prostate Cancer. Nature Reviews Urology, 6, 205-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2009.29

[5]   Chan, S.M., Garcia, F.J., Chin, J.L., Moussa, M. and Gabril, M.Y. (2011) The Clinical Significance of In-Depth Pathological Assessment of Extraprostatic Extension and Margin Status in Radical Prostatectomies for Prostate Cancer. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 14, 307-312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.15

[6]   Ahn, H.J., Young, H.K., Jang, H.A., Kang, S.G., Kang, S.H., Park, H.S., et al. (2010) Single Positive Core Prostate Cancer in a 12-Core Transrectal Biopsy Scheme: Clinicopathological Implications Compared with Multifocal Counterpart. Korean Journal of Urology, 51, 671-676.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/kju.2010.51.10.671

[7]   Chaux, A., Fajardo, D.A., Roibon, N.G., Partin, A.W., Eisenberger, M., DeWeese, T.L., et al. (2012) High-Grade Prostatic Adenocarcinoma in a Single Biopsy Core Is Associated with Increased Extraprostatic Extension, Seminal Vesicle Invasion, and Positive Surgical Margin at Prostatectomy. Urology, 79, 863-868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.012

[8]   Klotz, L., Zhang, L., Lam, A., Nam, R., Mamedov, A. and Loblaw, A. (2010) Clinical Results of Long-Term Follow-Up of a Large, Active Survveilance Cohort with Localized Prostate Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28, 126-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2180

[9]   Van den Bergh, R.C.N., Roemeling, S., Roobol, M.J., Aus, G., Hugosson, J., Rannikko, A.S., et al. (2009) Outcomes of Men with Screen-Detected Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance Who Were Managed Expectantly. European Urology, 55, 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.007

[10]   Boccon-Gibod, L.M., Dumonceau, O., Toublanc, M., Ravery, V. and Boccon-Gibod, L.A. (2005) Micro-Focal Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of Biopsy and radical Prostatectomy Specimen Features. European Urology, 48, 895-899. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.033

[11]   Anast, J.W., Andriole, G.M., Bismar, T.A., Yan, Y. and Humphrey, P.A. (2004) Relating Biopsy and Clinical Variables to Radical Prostatectomy Findings: Can Insignificant and Advanced Prostate Cancer Be Predicted in a Screening Population? Urology, 64, 544-550.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.04.008

[12]   Epstein, J.I., Feng, Z., Trock, B.J. and Pierorazio, P.M. (2012) Upgrading and Downgrading of Prostate Cancer from Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy: Incidence and Predictive Factors Using the Modified Gleason Grading System and Factoring in Tertiary Grades. European Urology, 61, 1019-1024.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.050

[13]   Ozgür, A., Onol, F.F. and Türkeri, L.N. (2004) Important Preoperative Prognostic Factors for Extracapsular Extension, Seminal Vesicle Invasion and Lymph Node Involvement in Cases with Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy. International Urology and Nephrology, 36, 369-373.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11255-004-0746-z

[14]   Gao, X., Mohideen, N., Flanigan, R.C., Waters, B., Wojcik, E.M. and Leman, C.R. (2000) The Extent of Biopsy Involvement as an Independent Predictor of Extraprostatic Extension and Surgical Margin Status in Low Risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Treatment Selection. Journal of Urology, 164, 1982-1986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66933-9

[15]   Mauermann, J., Fradet, V., Lacombe, L., Dujardin, T., Tiguert, R., Tetu, B., et al. (2012) The Impact of Solitary and Multiple Positive Surgical Margins on Hard Clinical End Points in 1712 Adjuvant Treatment-Naive pT2-4 N0 Radical Prostatectomy Patients. European Urology, 10 August 2012 [Epub ahead of print].

[16]   Taverna, G., Benecchi, L., Grizzi, F., Seveso, M., Giusti, G., Piccinelli, A., et al. (2012) Can a Gleason 6 or Less Microfocus of Prostate Cancer in One Biopsy and Prostate-Specific Antigen Level <10 ng/mL Be Defined as the Archetype of Low-Risk Prostate Disease? Journal of Oncology, 2012, Article ID: 645146.

[17]   Beauval, J.B., Ploussard, G., Soulié, M., Pfister, C., Van Agt, S., Vincendeau, S., et al. (2012) Pathologic Findings in Radical Prostatectomy Specimens from Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance with Highly Selective Criteria: A Multicenter Study. Urology, 80, 656-660.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.051

[18]   Pepe, P., Fraggetta, F., Galia, A., Candiano, G., Grasso, G. and Aragona, F. (2010) Is a Single Focus of Low-Grade Prostate Cancer Diagnosed on Saturation Biopsy Predictive of Clinically Insignificant Cancer? Urologia Internationalis, 84, 440-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000296293

[19]   Dall’óglio, M.F., Crippa, A.S., Paranhos, M., Nesrralah, L.J., Leite, K.R. and Souri, M. (2005) Pathological Extension of Prostate Cancer as Defined by Gleason Score on Biopsy. International Brazilian Journal of Urology, 31, 326-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-55382005000400005

[20]   Eggener, S.E., Scardino, P.T., Walsh, P.C., Han, M., Partin, A.W., Trock, B.J., et al. (2011) Predicting 15-Year Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality after Radical Prostatectomy. Journal of Urology, 185, 869-875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.057

[21]   Green, I.F., Black, A.D., Anchala, P.R., Catelona, W.J., Dimov, N.D., Yang, X.J., et al. (2012) Trends in Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Tumor Volume by Visual Estimation in Prostatectomy Specimens. Pathology—Research and Practice, 17 August 2012 [Epub ahead of print].
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2012.06.006

[22]   Bill-Axelson, A., Holmberg, L., Garmo, H., Rider, J.R., Taari, K., Busch, C., et al. (2014) Radical Prostatectomy or Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 932-942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1311593

 
 
Top