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.

  • Review
  • Published:

‘Insignificant’ prostate cancer on biopsy: pathologic results from subsequent radical prostatectomy

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 10, pages 237–241 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

‘Insignificant’ prostate cancer is defined as disease of virulence insufficient to threaten survival. In this review, which describes nine articles and two abstracts discussing almost 800 cases, we discuss the correlation of such ‘insignificant’ biopsy findings in the context of subsequent radical prostatectomy data. From our review, minimal disease on biopsy does not reliably predict minimal disease in the subsequent prostatectomy specimen, in terms of the size and grade of tumor, extracapsular extension or positive margins. Thus, reasoned accounting should be made of other data before undertaking a course of radiation therapy as monotherapy, particularly prostate-specific antigen kinetics and potential molecular markers.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Irwin MB, Trapasso JG . Identification of insignificant prostate cancers: analysis of preoperative parameters. Urology 1994; 44: 862–867.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Terris MK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA . Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsies. J Urol 1992; 148: 829–832.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cupp MR, Bostwick DG, Myers RP, Oesterling JE . 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. J Urol 1995; 153: 1543–1548.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Goto Y, Ohori M, Arakawa A, Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT . Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. J Urol 1996; 156: 1059–1063.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Elgamal AA, Van Poppel HP, Van de Voorde WM, Van Dorpe JA, Oyen RH, Baert LV . Impalpable invisible stage T1c prostate cancer: characteristics and clinical relevance in 100 radical prostatectomy specimens–a different view. J Urol 1997; 157: 244–250.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter HB, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC, Epstein JI . Prospective evaluation of men with stage T1C adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997; 157: 2206–2209.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 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  PubMed  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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Augustin H, Hammerer PG, Graefen M, Erbersdobler A, Blonski J, Palisaar J et al. Insignificant prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimen: time trends and preoperative prediction. Eur Urol 2003; 43: 455–460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cheng L, Jones TD, Pan CX, Barbarin A, Eble JN, Koch MO . Anatomic distribution and pathologic characterization of small-volume prostate cancer (<0.5 ml) in whole-mount prostatectomy specimens. Mod Pathol 2005; 18: 1022–1026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Miyake H, Sakai I, Harada K, Hara I, Eto H . Prediction of potentially insignificant prostate cancer in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically organ-confined disease. Int J Urol 2005; 12: 270–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang X, Brannigan RE, Rademaker AW, McVary KT, Oyasu R . One core positive prostate biopsy is a poor predictor of cancer volume in the radical prostatectomy specimen. J Urol 1997; 158: 1431–1435.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thorson P, Vollmer RT, Arcangeli C, Keetch DW, Humphrey PA . Minimal carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens: diagnostic features and radical prostatectomy follow-up. Mod Pathol 1998; 11: 543–551.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. D'Amico AV, Wu Y, Chen MH, Nash M, Renshaw AA, Richie JP . 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. Cancer 2000; 89: 1810–1817.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Allan RW, Sanderson H, Epstein JI . Correlation of minute (0.5 MM or less) focus of prostate adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy with radical prostatectomy specimen: role of prostate specific antigen density. J Urol 2003; 70: 370–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ravery V, Szabo J, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod LA, Billebaud T, Hermieu JF et al. A single positive prostate biopsy in six does not predict a low-volume prostate tumour. Br J Urol 1996; 77: 724–728.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Scales CD, Amling CL, Kane CJ, Presti JC, Terris MK, Aronson WJ et al. Can unilateral prostate cancer be reliably predicted based upon biopsy features? J Urol 2006; 175: S373–S374 (#1162).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Barber T, Pansare V, Nikolavsky D, Pontes JE, Sakr W, Cher ML . Pathologic characteristics of contralateral prostate cancer among patients with a single positive core biopsy. J Urol 2006; 175: S507 (#1573).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Klotz L . Active surveillance versus radical treatment for favorable-risk localized prostate cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2006; 7: 355–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith EB, Frierson Jr HF, Mills SE, Boyd JC, Theodorescu D . Gleason scores of prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens over the past 10 years: is there evidence for systematic upgrading? Cancer 2002; 94: 2282–2287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoedemaeker RF, Rietbergen JB, Kranse R, Schroder FH, van der Kwast TH . Histopathological prostate cancer characteristics at radical prostatectomy after population based screening. J Urol 2000; 164: 411–415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Litwin MS, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Henning JM, et al., CaPSURE Investigators. 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. J Urol 2004; 171: 1393–1401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Kattan MW, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ, Schroder FH . Prediction of indolent prostate cancer: validation and updating of a prognostic nomogram. J Urol 2007; 177: 107–112.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fleshner N, Klotz L . Role of ‘saturation biopsy’ in the detection of prostate cancer among difficult diagnostic cases. Urology 2002; 60: 93–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Boccon-Gibod LM, de Longchamps 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz AG, Balch CM, Haller DG et al. (eds). Prostate. In: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edn. Springer-Verlag: New York, 2002, pp 309–313.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Wise AM, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Clayton JL . Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2002; 60: 264–269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Carter HB, Pearson JD, Metter EJ, Brant LJ, Chan DW, Andres R et al. Longitudinal evaluation of prostate-specific antigen levels in men with and without prostate disease. JAMA 1992; 267: 2215–2220.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Goluboff ET, Heitjan DF, DeVries GM, Katz AE, Benson MC, Olsson CA . Pretreatment prostate specific antigen doubling times: use in patients before radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1997; 158: 1876–1878.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. D'Amico AV, Chen MH, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ . Preoperative PSA velocity and the risk of death from prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 125–135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Martinez CA, Dall'Oglio M, Nesrallah L, Leite KM, Ortiz V, Srougi M . Predictive value of PSA velocity over early clinical and pathological parameters in patient with localized prostate cancer who undergo radical retropubic prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol 2004; 30: 12–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Patel DA, Presti Jr JC, McNeal JE, Gill H, Brooks JD, King CR . Preoperative PSA velocity is an independent prognostic factor for relapse after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 6157–6162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. D'Amico AV, Chen MH, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ . Identifying patients at risk for significant versus clinically insignificant postoperative prostate-specific antigen failure. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 4975–4979.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA . Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989; 142: 71–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Presti Jr JC, O'Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Mattu R, Veltri RW . 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 multipractice study. J Urol 2003; 169: 125–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti Jr JC . Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59: 386–391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ohori M, Eastham JA, Koh H, Kuroiwa K, Slawin KM, Wheeler TM et al. Is focal therapy reasonable in patients with early stage prostate cancer (CAP) – an analysis of radical prostatetcomy (RP) specimens. J Urol 2006; 175: S507 (#1574).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Quinn DI, Henshall SM, Sutherland RL . Molecular markers of prostate cancer outcome. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41: 858–887.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr Johnstone is a Georgia Cancer Coalition Distinguished Cancer Scholar, supported in part by the Georgia Cancer Coalition and by NCMHD Grant 5P60-MD000525.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiation Oncology Department, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    P A S Johnstone, P J Rossi & A B Jani

  2. Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    P A S Johnstone

  3. Urology Department, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    A B Jani & V Master

Authors
  1. P A S Johnstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P J Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A B Jani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. V Master
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P A S Johnstone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnstone, P., Rossi, P., Jani, A. et al. ‘Insignificant’ prostate cancer on biopsy: pathologic results from subsequent radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 10, 237–241 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500963

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.pcan.4500963

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links