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] Zhanhong LAI,Jiachen LI,Zelin YUN,Yonggang ZHANG,Hao ZHANG,Xiaoyan XING,Miao SHAO,Yuebo JIN,Naidi WANG,Yimin LI,Yuhui LI,Zhanguo LI. A unicenter real-world study of the correlation factors for complete clinical response in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(2): 284-292.
[2] Xunmin XU,Xiao SHAO,Aiping JI. Analysis of death cases in the oral emergency department [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(1): 185-189.
[3] Lu FENG,Jia-yu ZHAI,Jin-xia ZHAO. Medical visit status and clinical features in patients with IgG4 related disease [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(6): 1028-1032.
[4] Yi LIU,Chang-wei YUAN,Jing-yun WU,Qi SHEN,Jiang-xi XIAO,Zheng ZHAO,Xiao-ying WANG,Xue-song LI,Zhi-song HE,Li-qun ZHOU. Diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer using targeted biopsy with 6-core systematic biopsy for patients with PI-RADS 5 [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(5): 812-817.
[5] Chang-wei YUAN,De-run LI,Zhi-hua LI,Yi LIU,Gang-zhi SHAN,Xue-song LI,Li-qun ZHOU. Application of dynamic contrast enhanced status in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostatic cancer with PI-RADS 4 lesion [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(5): 838-842.
[6] Hui WEI, Ci-dan-yang-zong, Yi-xi-la-mu, Bai-ma-yang-jin. Risk factors associated with different types of Henoch-Schönlein purpura in Tibetan patients at high altitude [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(5): 923-928.
[7] Yun-fei SHI,Hao-jie WANG,Wei-ping LIU,Lan MI,Meng-ping LONG,Yan-fei LIU,Yu-mei LAI,Li-xin ZHOU,Xin-ting DIAO,Xiang-hong LI. Analysis of clinicopathological and molecular abnormalities of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(3): 521-529.
[8] Li-jia MA,Pan-pan HU,Xiao-guang LIU. Spinal metastases combined with leptomeningeal metastasis: A case report [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(3): 563-566.
[9] Yan XIONG,Xin LI,Li LIANG,Dong LI,Li-min YAN,Xue-ying LI,Ji-ting DI,Ting LI. Evaluation of accuracy of pathological diagnosis based on thyroid core needle biopsy [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(2): 234-242.
[10] Qi SHEN,Yi-xiao LIU,Qun HE. Mucinous tubular and spindle cell carcinoma of kidney: Clinicopathology and prognosis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(2): 276-282.
[11] Wei-hua HOU,Shu-jie SONG,Zhong-yue SHI,Mu-lan JIN. Clinicopathological features of Helicobacter pylori-negative early gastric cancer [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(2): 292-298.
[12] Dan-feng ZHENG,Jun-yu LI,Jia-xi LI,Ying-shuang ZHANG,Yan-feng ZHONG,Miao YU. Pathologic features of paraspinal muscle biopsies in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(2): 283-291.
[13] Xue-mei HA,Yong-zheng YAO,Li-hua SUN,Chun-yang XIN,Yan XIONG. Solid placental transmogrification of the lung: A case report and literature review [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(2): 357-361.
[14] Bo-han NING,Qing-xia ZHANG,Hui YANG,Ying DONG. Endometrioid adenocarcinoma with proliferated stromal cells, hyalinization and cord-like formations: A case report [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(2): 366-369.
[15] Qian SU,Xin PENG,Chuan-xiang ZHOU,Guang-yan YU. Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in oral and maxillofacial regions: An analysis of 369 cases [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(1): 13-21.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(3): 225 -328 .
[2] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2001, 33(6): 565 .
[3] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2008, 40(1): 39 -42 .
[4] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2008, 40(6): 600 -602 .
[5] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(1): 90 -94 .
[6] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(5): 498 -502 .
[7] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2001, 33(6): 559 -561 .
[8] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2003, 35(5): 499 -502 .
[9] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2005, 37(6): 599 -602 .
[10] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2006, 38(2): 197 -200 .