论著

穿刺活检单针阳性的前列腺癌手术策略选择及经验总结

  • 郝一昌 ,
  • 颜野 ,
  • 张帆 ,
  • 邱敏 ,
  • 周朗 ,
  • 刘可 ,
  • 卢剑 ,
  • 肖春雷 ,
  • 黄毅 ,
  • 刘承 ,
  • 马潞林
展开
  • 北京大学第三医院泌尿外科,北京 100191

收稿日期: 2020-04-13

  网络出版日期: 2020-08-06

Surgical strategy selection and experience summary of prostate cancer with positive single needle biopsy

  • Yi-chang HAO ,
  • Ye YAN ,
  • Fan ZHANG ,
  • Min QIU ,
  • Lang ZHOU ,
  • Ke LIU ,
  • Jian LU ,
  • Chun-lei XIAO ,
  • Yi HUANG ,
  • Cheng LIU ,
  • Lu-lin MA
Expand
  • Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China

Received date: 2020-04-13

  Online published: 2020-08-06

摘要

目的: 分析穿刺活检单针阳性的前列腺癌患者行前列腺癌根治性切除术后的临床病理特征,以协助选择手术策略。方法: 回顾性分析2010年1月至2018年12月北京大学第三医院泌尿外科收治的经直肠前列腺系统穿刺活检单针阳性并且接受前列腺癌根治术的患者共计53例,患者年龄(69.7±6.9)岁(54~81岁)。穿刺前前列腺特异抗原(prostate specific antigen,PSA)为(9.70±5.24) μg/L(1.69~25.69 μg/L),前列腺体积为(50.70±28.39) mL(12.41~171.92 mL),穿刺Gleason评分6分、7分和≥8分者分别为39例(73.6%)、11例(20.8%)和3例(5.7%),临床分期T1期、T2期和T3期者分别为6例(11.3%)、44例(83.0%)和3例(5.7%)。按年龄、术前PSA水平、穿刺Gleason评分、单针肿瘤占穿刺组织百分比和临床分期等因素进行分组,比较各组患者的临床病理特征差异。结果: 术后Gleason评分6分、7分和≥8分者分别为 20例(37.7%)、21例(39.6%)和10例(18.9%),另有2例(3.8%)为pT0;病理分期T0期、T2a期、T2b期、T2c期和T3期者分别为2例(3.8%)、9例(17.0%)、2例(3.8%)、29例(54.7%)和11例(20.8%);11例(20.8%)手术切缘阳性,10例前列腺包膜外侵犯(18.9%),1例(1.9%)精囊侵犯。术后肿瘤呈多灶状分布42例(79.2%),双侧分布37例(69.8%)。与术前穿刺Gleason评分比较,术后Gleason评分下降3例(5.7%), 不变28例(52.8%),升级20例(37.7%),其中有2例(3.8%)为pT0;与临床分期比较,术后病理分期下降2例(3.8%),不变10例(18.9%),升级41例(77.4%)。根据术后病理分为微灶癌组(n=8)和非微灶癌组(n=45), 经比较,两组单针肿瘤占穿刺组织百分比(≤5%)差异有统计学意义(P=0.014),而年龄、前列腺体积、术前前列腺特异抗原密度(prostate special antigen density,PSAD)和术前穿刺Gleason评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);通过穿刺活检判断癌灶位于尖部的方法,假阴性率41.4%(12/29),假阳性率 50.0%(12/24)。实际清扫淋巴结和保留性神经的病例,与根据术后病理再次判断方案选择时存在统计学差异(P<0.05)。结论: 单针肿瘤占穿刺组织百分比≤5%是前列腺微灶癌的预测因素。37.7%病例发生病理分级升级和77.4%病例发生病理分期升级,选择手术方案(如性神经保护、淋巴结清扫、尖部的处理等)时,需要综合分析肿瘤危险度分层、列线图预测因素、多参数磁共振成像以及术中情况等多因素。

本文引用格式

郝一昌 , 颜野 , 张帆 , 邱敏 , 周朗 , 刘可 , 卢剑 , 肖春雷 , 黄毅 , 刘承 , 马潞林 . 穿刺活检单针阳性的前列腺癌手术策略选择及经验总结[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020 , 52(4) : 625 -631 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.04.005

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the clinicopathological characteristics of prostate cancer patients undertaking radical prostatectomy with single positive core biopsy, and to optimize the rational choice of therapeutic strategy. Methods: In the study, 53 patients with single positive core prostate biopsy and treated by radical prostatectomy from January 2010 to December 2018, were analyzed retrospectively. The mean age was (69.7±6.9) years (54-81 years), the mean prostate specific antigen (PSA) level was (9.70±5.24) μg/L (1.69-25.69 μg/L), and the mean prostate volume was (50.70±28.39) mL (12.41-171.92 mL). Thirty-nine out of 54 (73.6%) patients presented Gleason score with 6, 11 patients (20.8%) had Gleason score of 7 and 3 patients (5.7%) showed Gleason score ≥8. For clinical stages, 6 out of the 53 patients (11.3%) had prostate cancer in cT1,44 cases (83.0%) had prostate cancer in cT2,and 3 cases (5.7%) in cT3.The patients were divided into subgroups according to age, preoperative PSA level, Gleason score, percentage of tumor in single needle tissue and clinical stage, and the differences of their clinicopathological characteristics were compared. Results: Postoperative Gleason score of 6, 7 and ≥8 were found in 20 cases (37.7%), 21 cases (39.6%) and 10 cases (18.9%) respectively, another 2 cases (3.8%) were pT0 prostate cancer; pathological stages of T0, T2a, T2b, T2c and T3 were found in 2 cases (3.8%), 9 cases (17.0%), 2 cases (3.8%), 29 cases (54.7%) and 11 cases (20.8%) respectively; 11 cases (20.8%) had positive surgical margin, 10 cases (18.9%) had extracapsular invasion of prostate, and 1 case (1.9%) showed seminal vesicle invasion. Forty-two cases (79.2%) had multifocal lesions and 37 cases (69.8%) presented bilateral lesion. Compared with the biopsy Gleason score, the postoperative Gleason score was downgrated in 3 cases (5.7%), unchanged in 28 cases (52.8%), and upgraded in 20 cases (37.7%), of which 2 cases (3.8%) were pT0. Compared with the clinical stage, the postoperative pathological stage decreased in 2 cases (3.8%), unchanged in 10 cases (18.9%), and upgraded in 41 cases (77.4%). According to the postoperative pathology, the patients were divided into two groups: microfocus cancer group (n=8) and non-microfocus cancer group (n=45). The difference between the two groups in the percentage of tumor in the single-needle tissue ≤5% was statistically significant (P=0.014). Other parameter diffe-rences including age, prostate volume, and preoperative prostate special antigen density (PSAD) and Gleason scores were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The method to determine the location of cancer at the apex of prostate according to biopsy results showed 41.4% (12/29) false negative rate and 50.0% (12/24) false positive rate. There was statistically significant difference between the actual cases of lymph node dissection and reserved nerve and the cases of scheme selection in theory according to the postoperative pathology (P<0.05). Conclusion: The proportion of single needle cancer tissue less than or equal to 5% is a predictor of prostate microfocal cancer. 37.7% cases had pathological upgrading and 77.4% cases had pathological staging upgrading. When choosing the operation scheme, such as sexual nerve reserved, lymph node dissection and apex operation skill, it is necessary to comprehensively analyze multiple factors, such as tumor risk classification, prediction factors of nomogram, multi-parameter MRI and intraoperative situation and so on.

参考文献

[1] 中华医学会泌尿外科学分会, 中国前列腺癌联盟. 前列腺穿刺中国专家共识[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2016,37(4):241-244.
[2] Goldstein NS, Bégin LR, Grody WW, et al. Minimal or no can-cer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Report of 13 cases of the “vanishing cancer phenomenon”[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 1995,19(9):1002-1009.
[3] 张帆, 陆敏, 肖春雷, 等. pT0期前列腺癌的临床病理特征及预后分析[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2018,39(10):753-756.
[4] van der Kwast TH, Wolters T, Evans A, et al. Single prostatic cancer foci on prostate biopsy[J]. Eur Urol Suppl, 2007,7(8):549-556.
[5] Boccon-Gibod LM, Dumonceau O, Toublanc M, et al. Micro-focal prostate cancer: A comparison of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen features[J]. Eur Urol, 2005,48(6):895-899.
[6] Cheng L, Jones TD, Pan CX, et al. Anatomic distribution and pathologic characterization of small-volume prostate cancer (<0.5 mL) in whole-mount prostatectomy specimens[J]. Mod Pathol, 2005,18(8):1022-1026.
[7] 左强, 张帆, 黄毅, 等. 前列腺癌根治术后病理升级的临床危险因素分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016,48(4):603-606.
[8] Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: The essential importance of percentage of positive cores[J]. Eur Urol, 2012,61(3):480-487.
[9] Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Zaffuto E, et al. Development and internal validation of a novel model to identify the candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer[J]. Eur Urol, 2017,72(4):632-640.
[10] 中国抗癌协会泌尿男生殖系肿瘤专业委员会微创学组. 中国前列腺癌外科治疗专家共识[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2017,55(10):721-724.
[11] Steuber T, Graefen M, Haese A, et al. Validation of a nomogram for prediction of side specific extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy[J]. J Urol, 2006,175(3 Pt 1):939-944.
[12] 严维刚, 纪志刚, 李汉忠. 经会阴前列腺穿刺活检的再认识[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2016,54(2):153-156.
[13] Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, et al. Prostatic evasive anterior tumours: The role of magnetic resonance imaging[J]. BJU Int, 2009,105(10):1231-1236.
[14] Moran BJ, Braccioforte MH. Stereotactic transperineal prostate biopsy[J]. Urology, 2009,73(2):386-388.
[15] Popert R. Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging: Ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies (MRI-US FTB) of the prostate: the future of prostate diagnostics[J]. BJU Int, 2013,112(5):537-538.
[16] Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, et al. Multiparametric magne-tic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: A prospective study[J]. J Urol, 2014,192(1):67-74.
[17] Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ, et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy[J]. Eur Urol, 2009,57(2):179-192.
[18] Lee SE, Byun S, Lee HJ, et al. Impact of variations in prostatic apex shape on early recovery of urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy[J]. Urology, 2006,68(1):137-141.
[19] Lee AK, Doytchinova T, Chen M, et al. Can the core length involved with prostate cancer identify clinically insignificant disease in low risk patients diagnosed on the basis of a single positive core?[J]. Urol Oncol, 2003,21(2):123-127.
[20] Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A, et al. Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: When should we stop?[J]. J Urol, 2001,166(5):1679-1683.
[21] Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis[J]. N Engl J Med, 2018,378(19):1767-1777.
文章导航

/