A Single Microfocus (5% or Less) of Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer at Biopsy—Can We Predict Adverse Pathological Outcomes?

Single Positive Core Prostate Cancer at Biopsy: Clinicopathological Implications and Risk Factors for Adverse Pathological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Whether one positive core prostate cancer (PCa) is a low-risk disease remains to be determined. We investigated the pathological results of radical prostatectomy specimens diagnosed on single core positive prostate biopsy.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and December 2019, A total of 3441 consecutive patients treated with radical prostatectomy in our institution were examined. Among them, 293 patients were diagnosed with single positive core PCa on biopsy, and the clinical parameters and pathological findings of their radical prostatectomy specimens were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 293 patients, 108 (36.9%) had undergraded Gleason Scores (GS) based on the biopsy. Positive surgical margins (PSMs), perineural invasion (PNI), extracapsular extension (ECE, pT3a) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI, pT3b) were found in 16.4%, 15.0%, 3.4% and 2.4% of patients, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, we found that preoperative PSA level predict a significant increased risk of upgraded GS and PSMs, and biopsy GS was is a strong predictor of PNI, upgraded GS, tumor stage pT3 at radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Single positive core PCa have clinically significance in the radical prostatectomy specimens, with considerable rates of undergrading for the GS, PNI, PSMs, ECE and SVI. For patients with single positive core PCa, other prognostic factors must be considered in the treatment plan.

The role of mpMRI in qualification of patients with ISUP 1 prostate cancer on biopsy to radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

To investigate the role of mpMRI and high PIRADS score as independent triggers in the qualification of patients with ISUP 1 prostate cancer on biopsy to radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and June 2019, 494 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies were performed in our institution, including 203 patients (41.1%) with ISUP 1 cT1c-2c PCa on biopsy. Data regarding biopsy results, digital rectal examination, PSA, mpMRI and postoperative pathological report have been retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

In 183 cases (90.1%) mpMRI has been performed at least 6 weeks after biopsy. Final pathology revealed ISUP Gleason Grade Group upgrade in 62.6% of cases. PIRADS 5, PIRADS 4 and PIRADS 3 were associated with Gleason Grade Group upgrade in 70.5%, 62.8%, 48.3% of patients on final pathology, respectively. Within PIRADS 5 group, the number of upgraded cases was statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

PIRADS score correlates with an upgrade on final pathology and may justify shared decision of radical treatment in patients unwilling to repeated biopsies. However, the use of PIRADS 5 score as a sole indicator for prostatectomy may result in nonnegligible overtreatment rate.

[Grading of prostate cancer. For a more precise prognosis]

The simplification of the Gleason grading system, together with the reclassification of some of its patterns, has improved correlation with the clinical reality of prostate cancer, whilst maintaining the basic principles established fifty years ago. The subsequent grouping of the patterns into five degrees has allowed a more rational unification and enhanced the physician/patient communication. However, a greater precision in the assessment of the prognosis for each patient is still necessary and, to this end, elements that allow greater discrimination are continually being sought. The purpose of this brief review is to discuss the value and possible future incorporation in international recommendations of the percentage of pattern 4, the quantification of the cribriform pattern, the detection of intraductal carcinoma, the regrouping of some 'scores' and the possible stratification of the grade group 1.

Can single positive core prostate cancer at biopsy be considered a low-risk disease?

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer (PCa) may be a multifocal or bilateral disease. A single positive biopsy core is usually associated with indolent PCa, and doctors may choose to perform active surveillance or focal therapy. We investigated the correlation between finding a single positive biopsy core and the pathological outcome after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

Data from the Michinoku Japan Urological Cancer Study Group database including pre- and post-operative information, on 1928 consecutive patients with PCa treated with RP alone at four institutions was used. Among them, 503 patients with a single positive core PCa were followed up, and the clinical and pathological parameters influencing prognosis were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 503 patients, 258 (51.3%) had pathological findings ≥ pT2c and 160 (32%) had an undergraded Gleason Score (GS) based on their biopsy findings. A total of 112 patients (39.5%) with clinical T1c developed bilateral tumors (pT2c-T3). The rate of developing pT3 tumors in the single positive core group was significantly higher than that of the multiple positive core group. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the number of pT3b patients between the single and multiple positive core PCa groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens, positive core PCa can lead to clinically significant disease, with considerable rates of pT3. For patients with PCa and a positive prostate biopsy core, definitive therapy such as RP should be considered.

Endorectal MRI for risk classification of localized prostate cancer: Radiographic findings and influence on treatment decisions

PURPOSE

To report the results of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging (eMRI) in patients with localized prostate cancer, and how these images influenced radiotherapeutic management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 122 men with localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate referred to radiation oncology underwent 3-T eMRI between 2010 and 2014, to evaluate candidacy for active surveillance (n = 26) and brachytherapy as monotherapy (n = 47), or to further risk stratify intermediate-risk (n = 29) or high-risk (n = 20) men before external beam radiation therapy. By National Comprehensive Cancer Network classification, men had low-risk (28%), intermediate-risk (55%), or high-risk (17%) disease. Multiparametric MRI sequences included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. Radiographic extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion (rSVI), and pelvic lymph node involvement (LNI) were graded as negative, indeterminate, or positive. A dominant nodule was defined as a nodule≥1.5cm. Changes in management were identified comparing pre-MRI and post-MRI plan of care.

RESULTS

The rates of radiographic extracapsular extension, radiographic seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node involvement, and dominant nodule were 39%, 7%, 12%, and 28%, respectively. The eMRI identified measurable disease in most patients with an increasing burden of disease (sextants involved, median nodule size) according to risk category (P<0.01). Changes in management after eMRI occurred in 18%, including 9%, 18%, and 33% of men with low-risk, intermediate-risk, or high-risk disease (P = 0.08), and 12%, 17%, and 22% of men who were candidates for active surveillance, brachytherapy as monotherapy, or external beam radiation therapy (P = 0.48), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The eMRI influenced management in a risk-dependent fashion. Further study is required to determine the clinical importance of eMRI findings and to determine whether changes in management can lead to improved clinical outcome.

Clinical significance of single microscopic focus of adenocarcinoma at prostate biopsy

Objective

Prostate cancer (PC) is one of the most common cancer and an important reason of cancer specific death. The incidence of patients who diagnosed at low stage increased because of widespread using Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing. We evaluated the patients who were diagnosed single microscopic focus of adenocarcinoma and treated radical prostatectomy at final pathology.

Methods

The patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy between January 2004 and January 2012 were enrolled retrospectively. We extracted the patients who were diagnosed single microscopic focus of adenocarcinoma and treated with RP. Single microscopic adenocarcinoma was defined as one single focus measuring 3 mm or less, well differentiated (Gleason ≤6) adenocarcinoma. 37 patients were included at the study. Clinical data; including age, serum PSA levels, PSA density and prior biopsy and prostatectomy specimen results were recorded. In pathological examination; high molecular weight cytokeratin (HMW-CK), p63, and alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) were used for differential diagnosis.

Results

The patients' ages were between 42 and 77 with a mean age of 64.9 ± 7.57 years. Mean PSA levels and prostate volumes were 8.03 ± 5.21 ng/ml and 54 ± 25.51 cc. T0, T2a, T2c and T3a were reported in 2 patients, 17 patients, 17 patients and 1 patient after pathological evaluation. According to the Gleason grading system; 6 patients were 7 (3 + 4), one patient was 7 (4 + 3), one patient was 5 (3 + 2) and 27 patients were 6 (3 + 3).

Conclusion

Small volume of cancer at prostate biopsy is not necessarily small cancer in radical prostatectomy. The treatment choice may be over or under treatment for some patients, so the patients must be informed when choosing the treatment.

Nonvisible tumors on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging does not predict low-risk prostate cancer

Purpose

To determine whether multiparametric MRI could help predict the diagnosis of low-risk prostate cancer (PCA).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive 623 patients with PCA who underwent multiparametric MRI before radical prostatectomy(RP). High-resolution T1- and T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic precontrast and postcontrast image sequences were obtained for each patient. Of the 623 patients, 177(28.4%) exhibited non visible tumors on MRI of clinical stage T1c. The imaging results were compared with the pathological findings with respect to both stage and Gleason scores (GS).

Results

Of the 177 prostatectomy patients with non visible tumors on MRI, pathological findings resulted in the upgrading of 49(27.7%) patients to a sum of GS 7 or more. 101(57.1%) patients exhibited tumor volumes greater than 0.5cc. The biochemical recurrence rate was significantly higher in the pathological upgraded group compared with the nonupgraded group after a mean follow-up time of 29 months. In the multiple logistic analysis, non visible tumor on MRI was not a significant predictor of low-risk PCA.

Conclusions

Even though cancer foci were not visualized by postbiopsy MRI, the pathological tumor volumes and extent of GS upgrading were relatively high. Therefore, nonvisible tumors by multiparametric MRI do not appear to be predictive of low-risk PCA.

Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer: Translating Biology into Population Health

PURPOSE

Gleason 6 (3+3) is the most commonly diagnosed prostate cancer among men with prostate specific antigen screening, the most histologically well differentiated and is associated with the most favorable prognosis. Despite its prevalence, considerable debate exists regarding the genetic features, clinical significance, natural history, metastatic potential and optimal management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Members of the Young Urologic Oncologists in the Society of Urologic Oncology cooperated in a comprehensive search of the peer reviewed English medical literature on Gleason 6 prostate cancer, specifically focusing on the history of the Gleason scoring system, histological features, clinical characteristics, practice patterns and outcomes.

RESULTS

The Gleason scoring system was devised in the early 1960s, widely adopted by 1987 and revised in 2005 with a more restrictive definition of Gleason 6 disease. There is near consensus that Gleason 6 meets pathological definitions of cancer, but controversy about whether it meets commonly accepted molecular and genetic criteria of cancer. Multiple clinical series suggest that the metastatic potential of contemporary Gleason 6 disease is negligible but not zero. Population based studies in the U.S. suggest that more than 90% of men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer undergo treatment and are exposed to the risk of morbidity for a cancer unlikely to cause symptoms or decrease life expectancy. Efforts have been proposed to minimize the number of men diagnosed with or treated for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. These include modifications to prostate specific antigen based screening strategies such as targeting high risk populations, decreasing the frequency of screening, recommending screening cessation, incorporating remaining life expectancy estimates, using shared decision making and novel biomarkers, and eliminating prostate specific antigen screening entirely. Large nonrandomized and randomized studies have shown that active surveillance is an effective management strategy for men with Gleason 6 disease. Active surveillance dramatically reduces the number of men undergoing treatment without apparent compromise of cancer related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition and clinical relevance of Gleason 6 prostate cancer have changed substantially since its introduction nearly 50 years ago. A high proportion of screen detected cancers are Gleason 6 and the metastatic potential is negligible. Dramatically reducing the diagnosis and treatment of Gleason 6 disease is likely to have a favorable impact on the net benefit of prostate cancer screening.

Combination of clinical characteristics and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy to predict lobes without significant cancer: application in patient selection for hemiablative focal therapy

PURPOSE

A major limitation of performing hemiablative focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is the possibility of accompanying significant cancer in the contralateral side of the prostate that is missed on prostate biopsy. We attempted to verify whether clinical and biopsy-related parameters can be used to predict the absence of significant cancer in the prostate lobe.

METHODS

We assumed that hemiablative FT could be performed in patients with low-risk PCa, with unilateral tumors as assessed by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. We evaluated 214 patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP) and fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Seemingly preserved lobes, defined by the absence of cancer on biopsy, were classified as lobes with no cancer (LNC), lobes with insignificant cancer (LIC), and lobes with significant cancer (LSC) according to RP pathology. Cases with an estimated tumor volume of <0.5 mL, a Gleason score of <7, and organ confinement without Gleason pattern 4 were classified as LIC. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for LSC. Predictive accuracies of the multivariate models were assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve-derived areas under the curve.

RESULTS

Of 214 evaluated lobes, 45 (21.0%), 62, (29.0%), and 107 (50.0%) were classified as LNC, LIC, and LSC, respectively. Among the clinical and biopsy-related parameters, prostate-specific antigen density and prostate volume were identified as significant predictors for LSC in univariate regression analysis. However, multivariate analysis did not identify an independent predictor. Predictive accuracies of the multivariate models did not exceed 70.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional parameters have limited value in predicting LSC in patients who are candidates for hemiablative FT.

Can microfocal prostate cancer be regarded as low-risk prostate cancer?

PURPOSE

Prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer has become widespread, the prostate biopsy technique has evolved, and the occurrence of low-risk prostate cancer has been increasing. Even low-risk patients may demonstrate disease upgrading or upstaging. We aimed to evaluate the clinical importance of a single microfocal prostate cancer at biopsy in patients subsequently treated with radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 337 cases of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy after prostate biopsies were retrospectively reviewed. Microfocal prostate cancer was defined as Gleason score 6 and a single positive core with ≤5% cancer involvement after the standard 12-core extended biopsy.

RESULTS

Of the 337 prostatectomy specimens, 22 (6.5%) were microfocal prostate cancer based on prostate biopsy. On final pathology, microfocal patients were found to have significant 45% Gleason score upgrading (P=0.02) and 27% positive surgical margins (P=0.04) despite low PSA, compared with the nonmicrofocal prostate cancer group. Gleason upgrading was significantly higher in the microfocal prostate cancer group (P=0.02), whereas Gleason downgrading was significantly higher in the nonmicrofocal prostate cancer group (P<0.01). Furthermore, biochemical recurrence rate was no different between microfocal and nonmicrofocal prostate cancer at mean 31 months (P=0.18). Overall, 13 of 22 cases (53.1%) in the microfocal prostate cancer group showed Gleason upgrading or stage upgrading.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on higher rates of Gleason score upgrading or stage upgrading cases in microfocal prostate cancer group, compared with nonmicrofocal prostate cancer group, active surveillance should be cautiously applied to these patients.

Is PCA3 score useful in preoperative staging of a single microfocus of prostate cancer diagnosed at saturation biopsy?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) score accuracy in preoperative staging of cases of single microfocus of prostate cancer (PCa; less than 5% with Gleason score ≤6) diagnosed after repeat saturation biopsy (median 30 cores).

METHODS

From January 2009 to March 2012, 38 patients (median 64 years) with a microfocus of PCa, median PSA of 9.1 ng/ml and T1c clinical stage underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. PCA3 score (cut-off of 20 vs. 35) was evaluated in predicting insignificant PCa (pIPCa: cancer volume <0.5 ml and Gleason score ≤6) versus organ-confined (OC) versus non-OC PCa.

RESULTS

Median PCA3 score results were equal to 10 versus 53 (p < 0.05) versus 108 (p < 0.05) in the presence of pIPCa (13.2%), versus OC (65.8%) versus non-OC PCa (21%), respectively. PCA3 scores were significantly correlated with tumor volume.

CONCLUSIONS

A PCA3 score cut-off >20 in the presence of a microfocus of PCa is highly predictive of significant PCa (diagnostic accuracy equal to 86.8%) at definitive specimen.

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?

Prostate cancer (PC) remains a cause of death worldwide. Here we investigate whether a single microfocus of PC at the biopsy (graded as Gleason 6 or less, ≤5% occupancy) and the PSA <10 ng/mL can define the archetype of low-risk prostate disease. 4500 consecutive patients were enrolled. Among them, 134 patients with a single micro-focus of PC were followed up, and the parameters influencing the biochemical relapse (BR) were analysed. Out of 134 patients, 94 had clinically significant disease, specifically in 74.26% of the patients with PSA <10 ng/mL. Positive surgical margins and the extracapsular invasion were found in 29.1% and 51.4% patients, respectively. BR was observed in 29.6% of the patients. Cox regression evidenced a correlation between the BR and Gleason grade at the retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), capsular invasion, and the presence of positive surgical margins. Multivariate regression analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between the presence of surgical margins at the RRP and BR. Considering a single micro-focus of PC at the biopsy and PSA serum level <10 ng/mL, clinically significant disease was found in 74.26% patients and only positive surgical margins are useful for predicting the BR.

Predictive models for worsening prognosis in potential candidates for active surveillance of presumed low-risk prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Low-risk prostate cancer patients clinically eligible for active surveillance can also be managed surgically. We evaluated the pathologic outcomes for this cohort that was treated by radical prostatectomy and devised nomograms to predict patients at risk of upgrading and/or upstaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven hundred and fifty patients treated by radical prostatectomy from Jan 2005 to the present fulfilled conventional active surveillance criteria and formed the study cohort. Preoperative data on standard clinicopathologic parameters were available. The radical prostatectomy specimens were graded and staged, and any upgrading to Gleason sum >6 or upstaging to ≥pT3 ('worsening prognosis') were noted. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to develop predictive nomograms.

RESULTS

Of the 750 patients, 303 (40.4%) patients were either upgraded or upstaged. Multivariable analysis found that preoperative PSA, number of positive cores, and prostate volume were significantly predictive of worsening prognosis and formed the nomogram criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Of patients deemed eligible for active surveillance based on conventional criteria, 40.4% have worse prognostic factors after radical prostatectomy. Current active surveillance criteria may be too relaxed, and the use of nomograms which we have devised, may aid in counseling primary prostate cancer patients considering active surveillance as their therapy of choice.

Single positive core prostate cancer in a 12-core transrectal biopsy scheme: clinicopathological implications compared with multifocal counterpart

Purpose

The incidence of single positive core prostate cancer at the time of biopsy appears to be increasing in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era. To determine the clinical implication of this disease, we analyzed surgical and pathological characteristics in comparison with multiple positive core disease.

Materials and Methods

Among 108 consecutive patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy following a diagnosis of prostate cancer based on a 12-core transrectal biopsy performed by the same method in a single institute, outcomes from 26 patients (Group 1) diagnosed on the basis of a single positive biopsy core and from 82 patients (Group 2) with multiple positive biopsy cores were analyzed.

Results

The preoperative PSA value, Gleason score, prostate volume, and D'Amico's risk classification of each group were similar. The proportion of intermediate+highrisk patients was 69.2% in Group 1 and 77.9% in Group 2 (p=0.22). Total operative time and blood loss were similar. Based on prostatectomy specimens, only 3 patients (11.5%) in Group 1 met the criteria for an indolent tumor (7.31% in Group 2). Although similarities were observed during preoperative clinical staging (p=0.13), the final pathologic stage was significantly higher in Group 2 (p=0.001). The positive-margin rate was also higher in Group 2 (11.5% vs. 31.7%, p=0.043). Despite similarity in upstaging after prostatectomy in each group (p=0.86), upgrading occurred more frequently in Group 1 (p=0.014, 42.5% vs. 19.5%). No clinical parameters were valuable in predicting upgrading.

Conclusions

Most single positive core prostate cancer diagnoses in 12-core biopsy were clinically significant with similar risk stratification to multiple positive core prostate cancers. Although the positive-margin rate was lower than in multiple positive core disease, an increase in Gleason score after radical prostatectomy occurred more frequently.

Outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men who are candidates for active surveillance: results from the SEARCH database

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate outcomes after radical prostatectomy among men with low-risk prostate cancer who would be candidates for active surveillance.

METHODS

Using the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) database of men treated with radical prostatectomy at multiple equal-access medical centers between 1988 and 2007, 398 of 2062 men (19%) met our criteria for potential active surveillance: clinical stage T1c or T2a, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <10 ng/mL, Gleason sum ≤6, and no more than 1 or 2 positive cores on at least a sextant biopsy. We examined the risk of adverse pathology, biochemical progression, and PSA doubling time (PSADT) at the time of recurrence. We used a Cox proportional hazards model to determine the significant predictors of PSA progression.

RESULTS

Of the men with low-risk prostate cancer, 85% had organ-confined disease, only 2% had seminal vesicle invasion, and no patient had lymph node metastasis. The 5- and 10 year PSA-free survival rates were 81% (95% CI: 76-86%) and 66% (95% CI: 54-76%). On multivariate analysis, older age (P = .005), Agent Orange exposure (P = .02), and obesity (P = .03) were all significantly associated with biochemical failure. Mean and median PSADT among men who experienced recurrence were 37 and 20 months. Only 3 patients experienced recurrence with PSADT < 9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Most men with low-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy experience long-term PSA control. Those who did experience recurrence often did so with a long PSADT. Consistent with prior SEARCH database reports, older age, Agent Orange exposure, and obesity increased the risk of recurrence.

Focal therapy for prostate cancer: possibilities and limitations

CONTEXT

A significant proportion of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer have well-differentiated, low-volume tumors at minimal risk of impacting their quality of life or longevity. The selection of a treatment strategy, among the multitude of options, has enormous implications for individuals and health care systems.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to review the rationale, patient selection criteria, diagnostic imaging, biopsy schemes, and treatment modalities available for the focal therapy of localized prostate cancer. We gave particular emphasis to the conceptual possibilities and limitations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed search (www.pubmed.gov) was performed from 1995 to 2009 using medical subject headings "focal therapy" or "ablative" and "prostate cancer." Additional articles were extracted based on recommendations from an expert panel of authors.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Focal therapy of the prostate in patients with low-risk cancer characteristics is a proposed treatment approach in development that aims to eradicate all known foci of cancer while minimizing damage to adjacent structures necessary for the preservation of urinary, sexual, and bowel function. Conceptually, focal therapy has the potential to minimize treatment-related toxicity without compromising cancer-specific outcome. Limitations include the inability to stage or grade the cancer(s) accurately, suboptimal imaging capabilities, uncertainty regarding the natural history of untreated cancer foci, challenges with posttreatment monitoring, and the lack of quality-of-life data compared with alternative treatment strategies. Early clinical experiences with modest follow-up evaluating a variety of modalities are encouraging but hampered by study design limitations and small sample sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate focal therapy is a promising and emerging treatment strategy for men with a low risk of cancer progression or metastasis. Evaluation in formal prospective clinical trials is essential before this new strategy is accepted in clinical practice. Adequate trials must include appropriate end points, whether absence of cancer on biopsy or reduction in progression of cancer, along with assessments of safety and longitudinal alterations in quality of life.

Small Volume (<0.5 cc) Prostate Cancer: Characteristics and Clinical Implications

Introduction

It is not well known how many Small Volume Prostate Cancers (SVPC) may host high grade (Gleason pattern 4/5) or have extraprostatic extension in particular in the national setting. Features of SVPC are very interesting since they raise controversies in diagnosis and have important clinical implications in treatment strategies. The diagnosis may be difficult and the treatment ranges from active surveillance to radical surgery. AIM. We evaluate clinical and pathological features of SVPC in surgical specimens of patients who underwent biopsy and radical prostatectomy.

Methods

We analysed a consecutive series of 849 radical prostatectomies performed between 2005 and 2008. Inclusion criteria were: biopsy specimen available, pathological tumor volume analysis according to standard criteria, whole-mount section 3 mm step analysis according to Stanford protocol, clinical parameters (PSA, DRE, number of core biopsy taken). Exclusion criteria: any hormonal manipulation before surgery and cT1A/B stage. Data were analysed using SPSS for statistical comparison.

Results

238 patients were evaluated. SVPC<0.5 cc was observed in 58 (24.3%). Overall in 17/58 (29.3%) a clinical/pathological relevant disease was observed. In 16/58 (27.5%) pathological Gleason Score (GS) was 7–8, in 5/58 (9%) pathological stage was T3. The number of tumor foci was >1 in 78.3%, tumor-involving in both lobes in 55%. Unifocal disease was observed in 22%. Clinically relevant disease is significantly associated with total cancer volume (0.20 versus 0.31, p 0.007), but not to tumor foci (2.5 versus 2.0). PSA, age, no. of positive cores, DRE were not predictive of clinical relevant disease. Six of 17 (35%) cases with SVPC - who were in the low risk category (PSA <10, biopsy Gleason score <7 and negative DRE), had clinical relevant disease.

Conclusion

SVPC are clinically relevant in 29.3% since they have a Gleason pattern 4 (27.5%) or have only pathological T3 (9%). Early diagnosis techniques and treatments have to consider that SVPC prostate cancer may contain high risk disease in 1/4 of cases. Clinical parameters are not useful to accurately detect high risk SVPC.