Surgical strategy selection and experience summary of prostate cancer with positive single needle biopsy.
- Author:
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
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Biopsy, needle;
Pathology, clinical;
Prostatic neoplasms
- MeSH:
Aged;
Aged, 80 and over;
Biopsy, Needle;
Humans;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Neoplasm Grading;
Neoplasm Staging;
Prostate-Specific Antigen;
Prostatectomy;
Prostatic Neoplasms;
Retrospective Studies
- From:
Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences)
2020;52(4):625-631
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
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.
