Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer.

PURPOSE Because of the recent increase in nonpalpable prostate cancer (clinical stage T1c) in men, preoperative needle biopsy findings have had an important role for treatment decisions. We examine the correlation among histopathological features of 6 systematic biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens in which 1 investigator reviewed all histological sections. MATERIALS AND METHODS We studied a total of 450 men with clinical stage T1c prostate cancer from whom needle biopsies were matched with radical prostatectomy specimens, and selected 222 patient biopsies that were obtained from 6 or more separate regions of the prostate. The pretreatment parameters of serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, number of positive needle biopsies, distribution of positive cores, linear cancer length, and percent Gleason grade 4/5 on the biopsy were determined and compared with histopathological features of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimens. All biopsies and radical prostatectomies were evaluated morphologically at the department of urology. RESULTS Of the 222 men the largest cancer was clinically insignificant in 23 (10%), as measured by a cancer volume of less than 0.5 cc. Cancer volume in the prostatectomy specimen was significantly related to all parameters in the biopsy, with the surprising exception of cancer distribution in the positive biopsies. However, all of these correlations with cancer volume were weak, with Pearson's correlation squared (R(2)) multiplied by 100 less than 10%. Unfortunately, tumor grade on the biopsy agreed with the prostatectomy specimen in only 81 of 222 (36%) cases. Grade assessment with needle biopsy underestimated the tumor grade in 102 (46%) cases and overestimated it in 39 (18%). No single parameter in the biopsy was a predictor of tumor significance, as measured by a cancer volume of greater than 0.5 cc. However, the best model to predict a tumor less than 0.5 cc in volume was the combination of a single positive core with cancer length less than 3 mm. that contained no Gleason grade 4/5. The use of PSA or PSA density in combination with needle biopsy findings did not enhance prediction of tumor significance. CONCLUSIONS These results indicate a weak and disappointing correlation among all pathological features of 6 systematic biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens. The combination of 1 positive core with cancer length less than 3 mm. that contains no Gleason grade 4/5 is probably the best predictor of prostate cancer less than 0.5 cc in men with nonpalpable tumors, a cancer volume that occurred in only 10% of the 222 (23) men.

[1]  D. Bostwick,et al.  The volume of prostate cancer in the biopsy specimen cannot reliably predict the quantity of cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen on an individual basis. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[2]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Relationship between serum prostate specific antigen, needle biopsy findings, and histopathologic features of prostatic carcinoma in radical prostatectomy tissues , 1995 .

[3]  D. Thickman,et al.  Effect of the number of core biopsies of the prostate on predicting Gleason score of prostate cancer. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[4]  T. Esen,et al.  Discrepancy between Gleason Scores of Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens , 2000, European Urology.

[5]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Gleason grading of prostatic needle biopsies. Correlation with grade in 316 matched prostatectomies. , 1994, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[6]  A S Whittemore,et al.  Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer , 1993, Cancer.

[7]  D. Bostwick,et al.  PSA-detected (clinical stage T1c or B0) prostate cancer. Pathologically significant tumors. , 1993, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[8]  T. Stamey,et al.  Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume , 2000, Cancer.

[9]  W. Fair,et al.  Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[10]  P. Walsh,et al.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. , 1994, JAMA.

[11]  T. Stamey,et al.  Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. , 1999, JAMA.

[12]  D. Chan,et al.  Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[13]  A. Rademaker,et al.  One core positive prostate biopsy is a poor predictor of cancer volume in the radical prostatectomy specimen. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[14]  M. Terris,et al.  Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsies. , 1992, The Journal of urology.

[15]  T. Stamey,et al.  Core cancer length in ultrasound-guided systematic sextant biopsies: a preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer volume. , 1995, Urology.

[16]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Analysis of risk factors for progression in patients with pathologically confined prostate cancers after radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[17]  T. Stamey,et al.  Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. , 1995, Urology.

[18]  T. Stamey,et al.  Effect of Ageing on Morphologic and Clinical Predictors of Prostate Cancer Progression , 2000 .