4.4 Article

Significance of minute focus of adenocarcinoma on prostate needle biopsy

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 2, Pages 299-302

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.068

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES To assess the radical prostatectomy findings in patients with a minute focus of adenocarcinoma on prostate needle biopsy in current practice in Australia. METHODS A total of 58 patients with a 0.5-mm focus or less of Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy who had been treated by radical prostatectomy were selected. At each biopsy, 6 to 20 cores (mean 11, median 13) were taken. Significant tumors were those with a Gleason score of 6 or more and tumor volume of 0.5 cm 3 or larger. RESULTS The 58 patients (mean age 50 years, median 58, range 44 to 69) had a mean prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 6.9 ng/mL (range 0.7 to 16, median 6). Of the 58 men, 48 (82.75%) had pathologically significant tumor, with 8 (13.8%) showing extraprostatic extension. No statistically significant association was found between significant carcinoma and age, mean PSA level, PSA density greater than 0.15, prior negative biopsy, coexistent atypical glands, or the number of tissue cores per biopsy. A prostate weight greater than 40 g correlated significantly with insignificant cancer on both univariate (P = 0.03) and multivariate (P = 0.02) analyses. In 14 (29.2%) of 48 patients with significant tumor, the largest cancer focus in the radical prostatectomy was anterior, lateral, or anterolateral. In patients without atypical glands, 37 (78.72%) of 47 had significant carcinoma, a risk not significantly lower than that of the entire group. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study have shown that in populations without PSA screening, a minute focus of prostate cancer on needle biopsy, even with extended biopsy cores, does not mean insignificant carcinoma in most cases. Patients with larger glands had a greater chance of insignificant cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available