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.

[1]  A. Tawil,et al.  Pathological correlation between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen in patients with localized prostate cancer. , 2012, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[2]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Effect of the correction for noncompliance and contamination on the estimated reduction of metastatic prostate cancer within a randomized screening trial (ERSPC section Rotterdam) , 2010, International journal of cancer.

[3]  F. Fraggetta,et al.  Is a Single Focus of Low-Grade Prostate Cancer Diagnosed on Saturation Biopsy Predictive of Clinically Insignificant Cancer? , 2010, Urologia Internationalis.

[4]  Choung-Soo Kim,et al.  Predictive Factors for Upgrading or Upstaging in Biopsy Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer , 2009 .

[5]  S. Byun,et al.  Prediction of Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancers diagnosed via multi (≥12)-core prostate biopsy , 2009, World Journal of Urology.

[6]  A. Shalhav,et al.  A single microfocus (5% or less) of Gleason 6 prostate cancer at biopsy--can we predict adverse pathological outcomes? , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[7]  Ketul Shah,et al.  Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases , 2007, BJU international.

[8]  Laurence H Klotz,et al.  Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention for favorable risk prostate cancer: clinical experience and a 'number needed to treat' analysis. , 2006, The Canadian journal of urology.

[9]  M. Toublanc,et al.  Micro-focal prostate cancer: a comparison of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen features. , 2005, European urology.

[10]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  The contemporary management of prostate cancer in the United States: lessons from the cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research endeavor (CapSURE), a national disease registry. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[11]  A. Renshaw,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? , 2003, Urologic oncology.

[12]  M Bolla,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. , 2001, European urology.

[13]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Pathologic findings and prostate specific antigen outcome after radical prostatectomy for patients diagnosed on the basis of a single microscopic focus of prostate carcinoma with a Gleason score ≤ 7 , 2000, Cancer.

[14]  A. Partin,et al.  Ability of sextant biopsies to predict radical prostatectomy stage. , 1998, Urology.

[15]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Recommendations for the reporting of resected prostate carcinomas , 1997, Human pathology.

[16]  D. Wood,et al.  Single focus of adenocarcinoma in the prostate biopsy specimen is not predictive of the pathologic stage of disease. , 1996, Urology.

[17]  D. Bostwick,et al.  Recommendations for the reporting of resected prostate carcinomas. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. , 1996, American journal of clinical pathology.

[18]  D. Gleason.  Undergrading of prostate cancer biopsies: a paradox inherent in all biologic bivariate distributions. , 1996, Urology.

[19]  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.

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

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

[22]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Intraglandular tumor extent and prognosis in prostatic carcinoma: application of a grid method to prostatectomy specimens. , 1990, Human pathology.

[23]  M. Terris,et al.  Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[24]  M. Bolla,et al.  Guía de la EAU para el Cáncer de Próstata , 2009 .

[25]  Anthony D'Amico,et al.  Prostate cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. , 2007, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[26]  J. M. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate gland: value of 12 versus 6 cores , 2003, Abdominal Imaging.

[27]  Robert W Veltri,et al.  Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[28]  K. Shinohara,et al.  The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. , 2000, The Journal of urology.