Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Diagnostic accuracy of extended biopsies for the staging of microfocal prostate cancers in autopsy specimen

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 12, pages 137–142 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Clinically insignificant prostate cancers may be predicted when biopsies show a microfocal cancer (MiFC). However, at least one-third of MiFC are underestimated by biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the staging accuracy of different biopsy regimen showing a MiFC. We performed 18 biopsy cores on 164 autopsy prostates. Six cores were taken from the mid-peripheral zone (MPZ), 6 from the lateral PZ (LPZ) and 6 from the central zone (CZ). We tested seven different biopsy regimens by distinguishing the MPZ, LPZ or CZ biopsies either separately or associated with each other. Of the cancers detected by biopsies, we selected those showing a MiFC and compared our findings with whole mount analysis. The positive predictive value of a MiFC referred to how often, when needle biopsies showed a MiFC, there was a clinically insignificant cancer on whole mount prostate analysis. We found that the positive predictive value of a MiFC on 6 or 12 biopsy cores was similar irrespective of biopsy location (P≈1). On MPZ, MPZ plus LPZ and all 18 biopsies, it was 40, 70 and 87%, respectively (P<0.1). Tumor volume of cancers showing a MiFC on MPZ biopsies was significantly higher than those showing a MiFC on MPZ plus LPZ, or all 18 biopsies (P<0.05). These results show that performing additional cores in case of MiFC on sextant biopsies may help differentiating significant from insignificant cancers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Master VA, Chi T, Simko JP, Weinberg V, Carroll PR . The independent impact of extended pattern biopsy on prostate cancer stage migration. J Urol 2005; 174: 1789–1793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ung JO, Richie JP, Chen MH, Renshaw AA, D’Amico AV . Evolution of the presentation and pathologic and biochemical outcomes after radical prostatectomy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed during the PSA era. Urology 2002; 60: 458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Galper SL, Chen MH, Catalona WJ, Roehl KA, Richie JP, D’Amico AV . Evidence to support a continued stage migration and decrease in prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 2006; 175: 907–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Postma R, Gosselaar C, van der Kwast TH, Bangma CH et al. Management and survival of screen-detected prostate cancer patients who might have been suitable for active surveillance. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 475–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP . Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 71: 933–938.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB . Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368–374.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ, Walsh PC, Cox JL, Rittenhouse H et al. Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol 1998; 160: 2407–2411.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Carter HB, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC, Epstein JI . Prospective evaluation of men with T1c adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997; 157: 2206–2209.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM . Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol 2001; 166: 104–109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Anast JW, Andriole GL, Bismar TA, Yan Y, Humphrey PA . Relating biopsy and clinical variables to radical prostatectomy findings: can insignificant and advanced prostate cancer be predicted in a screening population? Urology 2004; 64: 544–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Allan RW, Sanderson H, Epstein JI . Correlation of minute (05 mm or less) focus of prostate adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy with radical prostatectomy specimen: role of prostate specific antigen density. J Urol 2003; 170: 370–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boccon-Gibod LM, Dumonceau O, Toublanc M, Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod LA . Micro-focal cancer: a comparison of biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen features. Eur Urol 2005; 48: 895–899.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wise AM, Stamey TA, Mc Neal JE, Claytoin JL . Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2002; 60: 264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Haas GP, Delongchamps NB, Jones RF, Chandan V, Serio AM, Vickers AJ et al. Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1484–1489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Troncoso P, Babaian RJ, Ro JY, Grignon DJ, von Eschenbach AC, Ayala AG . Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive prostatic adenocarcinoma in cystoprostatectomy specimens. Urology 1989; 34: 52–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Epstein JI, Allsbrook Jr WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL . The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) concensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228–1242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CE . Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume. Cancer 2000; 89: 1056–1064.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schned AR, Wheeler KJ, Hodorowski CA, Heaney JA, Ernstoff MS, Amdur RJ et al. Tissue-shrinkage correction factor in the calculation of prostate cancer volume. Am J Surg Pathol 1996; 20: 1501–1506.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. McNeal JE, Bostwick DG, Kindrachuck RA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA . Patterns of progression in prostate cancer. Lancet 1986; 1: 60–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lowe BA, Listrom MB . Incidental carcinoma of the prostate: an analysis of the predictors of progression. J Urol 1988; 140: 1340–1344.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ravery V, Chastang C, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L, Delmas V, Boccon-Gibod L . Percentage of cancer on biopsy cores accurately predicts extracapsular extension and biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy for T1–T2 prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2000; 37: 449–455.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Algaba F, Arce Y, Oliver A, Barandica C, Santaularia JM, Montanés R . Prognostic parameters other than Gleason score for the daily evaluation of prostate cancer in needle biopsy. Eur Urol 2005; 48: 566–571.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Montironi R, Vela-Navarrete R, Lopez-Beltran A, Mazzucchelli R, Bono A . 2005 update on pathology of prostate biopsies with cancer. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J . Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 2006; 175: 1605–1612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Boccon-Gibod LM, Delongchamps NB, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod LA, Ravery V . Prostate saturation biopsy in the reevaluation of microfocal prostate cancer. J Urol 2006; 176: 961–963.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Epstein JI, Sanderson H, Carter HB, Scharfstein DO . Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2005; 66: 356–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Koppie TM, Bianco Jr FJ, Kuroiwa K, Reuter VE, Guillonneau B, Eastham JA et al. The clinical features of anterior prostate cancers. BJU Int 2006; 98: 1167–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Barzell WE, Melamed MR . Appropriate patient selection in the focal treatment of prostate cancer: the role of transperitoneal 3-dimensional pathologic mapping of the prostate. A 4 year experience. Urology 2007; 70: 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dugan JA, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Qian J, Bergstralh EJ, Oesterling JE . The definition and preoperative prediction of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. JAMA 1996; 275: 288–294.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Iguchi T, Wang CY, Delongchamps NB, Sunheimer R, Nakatani T, de la Roza G et al. Association of prostate cancer and manganese superoxide dismutase AA genotype influenced by presence of occult cancer in control group. Urology 2008; [E-pub ahead of print].

  31. Delongchamps NB, de la Roza G, Chandan V, Jones R, Sunheimer R, Threatte G et al. Evaluation of prostatitis in autopsied prostates: is chronic inflammation more associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia or cancer? J Urol 2008; 179: 1736–1740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by National Institute on Aging (AG021389) and National Cancer Institute (CA097751).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    N B Delongchamps, R Jones & G P Haas

  2. Department of Urology, Cochin Hospital, René Descartes University, Paris, France

    N B Delongchamps

  3. Department of Pathology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    G de la Roza, V Chandan & G Threatte

  4. Onondaga County Medical Examiner, Syracuse, NY, USA

    M Jumbelic

Authors
  1. N B Delongchamps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G de la Roza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V Chandan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G Threatte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M Jumbelic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G P Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N B Delongchamps.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Delongchamps, N., de la Roza, G., Chandan, V. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of extended biopsies for the staging of microfocal prostate cancers in autopsy specimen. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 12, 137–142 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2008.38

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2008.38

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links