Back to Search Start Over

Biopsy Perineural Invasion in Prostate Cancer Patients Who Are Candidates for Active Surveillance by Strict and Expanded Criteria

Authors :
Bruce L. Jacobs
Todd Yecies
Benjamin Davies
Joel B. Nelson
Jonathan G. Yabes
Elen Woldemichael
Robert M. Turner
Benjamin T. Ristau
Source :
Urology. 102:173-177
Publication Year :
2017
Publisher :
Elsevier BV, 2017.

Abstract

To evaluate the association of biopsy perineural invasion (PNI) with adverse pathologic findings on radical prostatectomy in patients who would have been candidates for active surveillance (AS).Using a prospectively populated database of 3084 men who underwent open radical prostatectomy, candidates for AS by strict (Johns Hopkins) and expanded (University of Toronto) criteria were identified. The presence of adverse pathologic features at radical prostatectomy was compared between those men with and without biopsy PNI.Of 596 men who met strict criteria for AS, 16 (3%) had biopsy PNI. In the strict AS cohort, there were no differences in adverse pathologic features at radical prostatectomy between those with and without PNI. Of 1197 men who were candidates for AS by expanded criteria, 102 (9%) had biopsy PNI. Men with biopsy PNI in the expanded AS cohort were more likely to have extraprostatic extension (P .001) and pathologic upgrading (P = .01) at prostatectomy. In addition, those with PNI had larger dominant nodules (P .001), and cancer comprised a greater percentage of their prostate glands (P .001). There was no difference in the proportion with a positive margin between the 2 groups (P = .77).Biopsy PNI was rare in patients who met strict criteria for AS. Among those men who met expanded criteria, PNI was associated with adverse pathologic findings upon prostatectomy. The presence of biopsy PNI may have a role in further risk stratifying patients who meet expanded criteria for AS.

Details

ISSN :
00904295
Volume :
102
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Urology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....39d2bac3547abef1cc799e240c3c4ec2
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.11.011