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

Tumor Volume and Clinical Failure in High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Radical Prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

To identify the most significant cut-off of tumor volume (TV) for prediction of clinical failure (CF) among high-risk prostate cancer (hPCa) patients.

METHODS

Within a multi-institutional cohort, 262 patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for hPCa were identified. CF was defined as local recurrence or distant metastases. A time dependent ROC curve was used to evaluate the area under the curve (AUC) using TV as single marker to predict clinical failure at 10 years. We searched for the TV cut off value with the highest combined sensitivity and specificity predicting CF. Three multivariable Cox regression analyses (MVA) tested the predictors of CF after RP. Predictors of the model 1 were pre-operative PSA, pathologic stage (PT), pathologic Gleason sum (GS), surgical margin status, and lymph node invasion. Predictors of the models 2 and 3 were the same of model 1 plus TV as a continuous or dichotomous variable using the defined cutoff, respectively. Validation (leave-one-out-cross-validation-LOOCV) of each model was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 46 (17.6%) patients experienced CF. The TV value was 6.29 ml. In MVA of models 2 and 3, PT and GS remained independent predictors of CF. Moreover, in model 2 TV (HR:1.07,) and in model 3 TV >6.29 ml (HR:2.99,) were independently associated with CF. In LOOCV, the C-index of models 1-3 were 65.53%, 71.75%, and 70.26%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TV is an independent predictor of CF in hPCa patients. Patients with a TV exceeding the cut-off of 6.29 ml are more likely to develop CF. Prostate 77:3-9, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Trends in prostatic adenocarcinoma tumor volume by visual estimation in prostatectomy specimens

We retrospectively reviewed 1792 consecutive radical prostatectomies (RP) from 2003 to 2006 at a single institution to establish tumor volume reference values, to determine current trends in visually estimated prostate adenocarcinoma tumor volume, and to characterize cases with no residual cancer on RP. Tumor volumes were recorded and subsequently stratified as very low, 0-1%; low, 1.1-10%; intermediate, 10.1-20%; high, 20.1-50%; and very high, >50%, with incidences of 11.7%, 52.1%, 21.5%, 13.2%, and 1.5%, respectively. The incidence of very low volume tumors increased within the time period (p=0.04). Seminal vesicle involvement was detected in 5.0% of cases and lymph node metastasis occurred in 1.4%. Volume categories statistically correlated with seminal vesicle invasion (p=0) and lymph nodes metastases (p=0). Eleven cases of no residual cancer (0.6%) were identified with a non-statically significant increase during the study (p=0.07). The rising incidence of very low volume tumors should be considered by clinicians when discussing treatment options with patients. A discrete tumor volume should be provided for RP specimens as it may be an important prognostic factor.

Findings in 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy that predict more advanced cancer at prostatectomy: analysis of 388 biopsy-prostatectomy pairs

We analyzed 5 features on 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (TRUS) to predict the extent of cancer at radical prostatectomy (RP). In 388 TRUS-RP pairs, number of positive cores (NPC), percentage of each core involved (%PC), perineural invasion (PNI), Gleason score (GS), distribution of positive cores (DPC), and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were correlated with extraprostatic extension (EPE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), positive surgical margin (R1), positive lymph nodes (N1), and tumor volume. All features predicted EPE and SVI. NPC, GS, %PC, and PNI strongly predicted R1 status. RP tumor volume was directly proportional to the NPC and %PC. PSA alone and with selected biopsy findings correlated with tumor volume, stage, SVI, and N1 (P < .0001). Contiguous DPC was a significant risk for EPE and SVI (P < .0001) compared with isolated positive cores. Findings at 12-core TRUS along with preoperative PSA reliably predict advanced local disease and have practical value as guides to effective planning for surgical resections.

Prognostic significance of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens

PURPOSE

This review addresses the controversies that persist relating to the prognosis and reporting of tumor volume in adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search was performed using the MEDLINE database and referenced lists of relevant studies to obtain articles addressing the quantification of cancer on radical prostatectomy and needle biopsy.

RESULTS

In the 2010 TNM classification system T2 tumor at radical prostatectomy is subdivided into pT2a (unilateral tumor occupying less than ½ a lobe), pT2b (unilateral tumor greater than ½ a lobe) and pT2c (bilateral tumor). This pathological substaging of T2 disease fails on several accounts. In most studies pT2b disease almost does not exist. By the time a tumor is so large that it microscopically occupies more than ½ a lobe, in the majority of cases there is bilateral (pT2c) tumor. An even greater flaw of the substaging system for stage pT2 disease is the lack of prognostic significance. In reporting pathologically organ confined cancer, it should be merely noted as pT2 without further subclassification. The data are conflicting as to the independent prognostic significance of objective measurements of tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens. The most likely explanation for the discordant results lies in the strong correlation of tumor volume with other prognostic markers such as extraprostatic extension and positive margins. In studies where it is statistically significant on multivariate analysis, it is unlikely that knowing tumor volume improves prediction of prognosis beyond routinely reported parameters to the degree that it would be clinically useful for an individual patient. An alternative is to record tumor volume as minimal, moderate or extensive, which gives some indication to the urologist as to the extent of disease. Not only does providing an objective measurement not add useful prognostic information beyond what is otherwise routinely reported by the pathologist, but many objective measurements done in routine practice will likely not be an accurate indicator of the true tumor volume. There is also a lack of consensus regarding the best method of measuring tumor length when there are multiple foci in a single core separated by benign intervening prostatic stroma. Some pathologists, this author included, consider discontinuous foci of cancer as if it was 1 uninterrupted focus, the rationale being that these discontinuous foci are undoubtedly the same cancer going in and out of the plane of section. Measuring the cancer from where it starts to where it ends on the core gives the minimal length of cancer in the prostate. Others measure each focus individually, and the sum of these measurements is considered the cancer length on the core. Quantifying cancer with an ocular micrometer to record the total length or percent length of cancer is time-consuming, and the data are conflicting whether this is superior to other, simpler methods and whether any potential differences in predictive accuracy would translate into changes in clinical management. It is recommended that at a minimum the number of positive cores be recorded, unless fragmented involved cores preclude evaluation, along with at least 1 other more detailed measurement such as the percent of core involvement or length of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus has been reached on some of the issues relating to quantifying tumor volume in prostate cancer, such as the lack of utility of substaging pT2 disease. Other questions such as whether to include or subtract intervening benign prostate tissue on prostate needle cores will require additional studies. Finally, matters such as the need to quantify cancer at radical prostatectomy or which method of quantifying cancer on needle biopsy is superior will likely remain contentious due to the close interrelationship and redundancy of prognostic variables.