Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2020, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (4): 625-631. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.04.005

Previous Articles     Next Articles

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()   

  1. Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
  • Received:2020-04-13 Online:2020-08-18 Published:2020-08-06
  • Contact: Cheng LIU,Lu-lin MA E-mail:chengliu@bjmu.edu.cn;malulin@medmail.com.cn

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.

Key words: Prostatic neoplasms, Biopsy, needle, Pathology, clinical

CLC Number: 

  • R737.25

Table 1

Characteristics of prostate cancers"

Items n (%)
Age
<70 years old 25 (47.2)
≥70 years old 28 (52.8)
Preoperative PSA level
≤4 μg/L 4 (7.5)
4-10 μg/L 30 (56.6)
≥10 μg/L 19 (35.8)
Prostate volume
≤30 mL 10 (18.9)
30-50 mL 21 (39.6)
≥50 mL 22 (41.5)
Proportion cancer tissue
≤5% 18 (34.0)
>5% 35 (66.0)
Biopsy Gleason score
6, 3+4=7 48 (90.6)
4+3=7, 8, 9 5 (9.4)
Pathologic stage
T0 2 (3.8)
T2a 9 (17.0)
T2b 2 (3.8)
T2c 29 (54.7)
T3 11 (20.8)
Surgical margin
Negative 42 (79.2)
Positive 11 (20.8)
Microfocality (<3 mm)
Negative 45 (84.9)
Positive 8 (15.1)
Mutifocality
Negative 11 (20.8)
Positive 42 (79.2)
Bilaterality
Negative 16 (30.2)
Positive 37 (69.8)

Table 2

Preoperative clinical parameters versus postoperative staging of the cancers n (%)"

Items Non-upgraded
(n=12)
Upgraded
(n=41)
P
Agea 0.823
<70 years old 6 (24.0) 19 (76.0)
≥70 years old 6 (21.4) 22 (78.6)
Prostate volumeb >0.999
<30 mL 2 (20.0) 8 (80.0)
≥30 mL 10 (23.3) 33 (76.7)
Preoperative PSADa 0.302
<0.15 7 (29.2) 17 (70.8)
≥0.15 5 (17.2) 24 (82.8)
Proportion cancer tissueb 0.298
≤5% 6 (33.3) 12 (66.7)
>5% 6 (17.1) 29 (82.9)
Biopsy Gleason scoreb >0.999
6, 3+4=7 12 (24.0) 38 (76.0)
4+3=7, 8, 9 0 3 (100.0)

Table 3

Preoperative clinical parameters versus postoperative microfocal cancer n (%)"

Items Non-microfocality
(n=45)
Microfocality
(n=8)
P
Age 0.708
<70 years old 22 (88.0) 3 (12.0)
≥70 years old 23 (82.1) 5 (17.9)
Prostate volume 0.636
<30 mL 8 (80.0) 2 (20.0)
≥30 mL 37 (86.0) 6 (14.0)
Preoperative PSAD >0.999
<0.15 20 (83.3) 4 (16.7)
≥0.15 25 (86.2) 4 (13.8)
Proportion cancer tissue 0.014
≤5% 12 (66.7) 6 (33.3)
>5% 33 (94.3) 2 (5.7)
Biopsy Gleason score >0.999
6, 3+4=7 42 (84.0) 8 (16.0)
4+3=7, 8, 9 3 (100.0) 0

Table 4

Preoperative biopsy versus postoperative pathological results n (%)"

Items Postoperative pathological results P
Negative Positive
Preoperative biopsy >0.999
Negative 17 (58.6) 12 (41.4)
Positive 12 (50.0) 12 (50.0)

Table 5

Postoperative pathological parameters versus intraoperative lymphadenectomy n (%)"

Items Intraoperative lymphadenectomy Pa
Negative Positive
Briganti nomogram 0.029
Negative 14(60.9%) 9(39.1%)
Positive 22(73.3%) 8(26.7%)
Tumor risk classification <0.001
Negative 6(75.0%) 2(25.0%)
Positive 30(66.7%) 15(33.3%)
[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.
pmid: 7661273
[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.
pmid: 16125298
[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.
pmid: 15861213
[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.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.044 pmid: 22078338
[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.
pmid: 28412062
[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.
pmid: 19027936
[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.
pmid: 24518762
[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.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.009 pmid: 19931974
[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.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.01.021 pmid: 16777192
[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.
doi: 10.1016/s1078-1439(02)00240-5 pmid: 12856640
[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.
pmid: 11586201
[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.
pmid: 29552975
[1] XUE Jiang,ZHANG Jian-yun,SHI Rui-rui,XIE Xiao-yan,BAI Jia-ying,LI Tie-jun. Clinicopathological analysis of 105 patients with fibrous dysplasia of cranio-maxillofacial region [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2022, 54(1): 54-61.
[2] Hui WEI, Luo-zeng, Ci-dan-yang-zong, Bai-ma-yang-jin. Analysis of clinical characteristics of Henoch-Schonlein purpura patients from different altitudes in plateau areas [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(6): 1072-1077.
[3] Zhi-bo SONG,Yan GENG,Xue-rong DENG,Xiao-hui ZHANG,Zhuo-li ZHANG. Benefit of ultrasound in the phenotype recognition of psoriatic arthritis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(6): 1061-1066.
[4] Mei-ge LIU,Pu FANG,Yan WANG,Lu CONG,Yang-yi FAN,Yuan YUAN,Yan XU,Jun ZHANG,Dao-jun HONG. Clinical, pathological and genetic characteristics of 8 patients with distal hereditary motor neuropathy [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(5): 957-963.
[5] ZHOU Guang-ping,ZHOU Qian-yun,ZHU Ji-hong. A case report of TAFRO syndrome [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(4): 814-817.
[6] ZHANG Lei,LI Guo-liang,DANG Zong-hui, ,A yong,WU Ling-jie,LIU Li-jun. Analysis of bleeding risk in percutaneous renal biopsy in Tibet [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(2): 298-301.
[7] XIA Fang-fang,LU Fu-ai,LV Hui-min,YANG Guo-an,LIU Yuan. Clinical characteristics and related factors of systemic lupus erythematosus with interstitial pneumonia [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(2): 266-272.
[8] GAO Yang-xu,SUN Qing,LI Hui,XIE Yao,YAO Hong-xin,ZHAO Wei-hong. Therapeutic effect and clinical cost of multi-disciplinary team model of hepatoblastoma in children [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(1): 200-203.
[9] WANG Ying-chun,HUANG Yong-hui,CHANG Hong,YAO Wei,YAN Xiu-e,LI Ke,ZHANG Yao-peng,ZHENG Wei. Characteristics of benign and malignant lesions of ampullary polyps and the accuracy of forceps biopsy [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(1): 204-209.
[10] Yu-zhou GAN,Yu-hui LI,Li-hua ZHANG,Lin MA,Wen-wen HE,Yue-bo JIN,Yuan AN,Zhan-guo LI,Hua YE. Comparison of clinical and immunological features between clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis and typical dermatomyositis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(6): 1001-1008.
[11] Shi-xiong WEI,Shu-jia LI,Yi LIU. Clinical characteristics and biological treatment of adult patient with juvenile idiopathic arthritis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(6): 1014-1022.
[12] Gong CHENG,Xia ZHANG,Fei YANG,Jia-yu CHENG,Yan-ying LIU. Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma with fever, arthritis and skin pigmentation: A case report [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(6): 1150-1152.
[13] Zhi-feng XU,Yun-peng LING,Zhong-qi CUI,hong ZHAO,Yi-chen GONG,Yuan-hao FU,Hang YANG,Feng WAN. Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive cardiac coronary artery bypass grafting surgery for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: Early outcome and short-mid-term follow up results [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(5): 863-869.
[14] Yi LIU,Zhi-jian LIU,Qi SHEN,Jing-yun WU,Yu FAN,De-run LI,Wei YU,Zhi-song HE. A clinical analysis of 14 cases of prostatic stromal tumor of uncertain malignant potential [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(4): 621-624.
[15] Ling WEI,Dong ZOU,Hu CHEN,Shao-xia PAN,Yu-chun SUN,Yong-sheng ZHOU. Evaluation of clinical efficacy of a kind of digital complete denture [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(4): 762-770.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Author. English Title Test[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2010, 42(1): 1 -10 .
[2] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 188 -191 .
[3] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(3): 376 -379 .
[4] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(4): 459 -462 .
[5] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2010, 42(1): 82 -84 .
[6] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(3): 319 -322 .
[7] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(3): 333 -336 .
[8] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(3): 337 -340 .
[9] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(3): 225 -328 .
[10] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(4): 346 -350 .