Prognostic significance of the diameter of perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens

被引:114
|
作者
Maru, N
Ohori, M
Kattan, MW
Scardino, PT
Wheeler, TM
机构
[1] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Pathol, Matsunaga Conte Prostate Canc Res Ctr, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Methodist Hosp, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Urol, New York, NY 10021 USA
[4] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, New York, NY 10021 USA
关键词
prostate carcinoma; perineural invasion; prostatectomy; disease progression;
D O I
10.1053/hupa.2001.26456
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
We assessed whether the quantification of cancer invasion into the perineural space influences the prognosis of patients treated with radical prostatectomy. We conducted a retrospective study of clinical and pathologic features in 640 consecutive patients with clinical stage TlaT3bNXM0 prostate cancer who were treated with radical retropubic prostatectomy by the same surgeon between 1989 and 1995. None had received preoperative hormonal therapy or radiotherapy. Detailed pathologic analysis, including the presence and maximum diameter of perineural invasion (PNI), was performed by 2 pathologists. Treatment failure was defined as either a serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level > 0.4 ng/mL and rising or initiation of adjuvant therapy. The median follow-up time was 48 months (range, 1 to 111 months). Overall, PNI was detected in 477 patients (75%). The progression-free 5-year probability rate after prostatectomy for patients with PNI was 70% +/- 3% compared with 94% +/- 2% for patients without PNI (P < .001). The mere presence of PNI was not an independent predictor of progression in a Cox proportional hazards analysis when the other established prognostic factors (serum PSA level, pathologic stage, surgical margin, and humor volume) were considered. However, the increasing diameter of the largest focus of PNI was strongly associated with other established prognostic factors and the probability of progression after radical prostatectomy. Although little adverse effect in patients with PNI < 0.25 mm was seen 5 years after surgery, those with a PNI diameter of 0.25 to 0.5 mm were significantly (P < .001) less likely to remain free of progression; only 36% of those with PNI of 0.5 to 0.75 mm (P < .001) and 14% of those with PNI greater than or equal to0.75 nun (P = .002) were free of progression. In a Cox proportional hazard analysis, the PNI diameter was an independent predictor of prognosis. These results support that the measurement of the PNI diameter, easily recorded from prostatectomy specimens, could add important information to the prognosis of prostate cancer patients. Controversy regarding the significance of PNI may result from the lack of quantitative assessment of PNI in previous studies. HUM PATHOL 32: 828-833. (C) 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company.
引用
收藏
页码:828 / 833
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Impact of positive surgical margin location and perineural invasion on biochemical recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy
    Lian, Zhenpeng
    Zhang, Hongtuan
    He, Zhaowei
    Ma, Shenfei
    Wang, Xiaoming
    Liu, Ranlu
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 18 (01)
  • [42] Prostate biopsy perineural invasion is not independently associated with positive surgical margins following radical retropubic prostatectomy
    Ristau, Benjamin T.
    Tomaszewski, Jeffrey J.
    Chen, Yi-Fan
    Bertolet, Marnie
    Woldemichael, Elen
    Nelson, Joel B.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 33 (09) : 1269 - 1274
  • [43] Prognostic Implications of Partial Sampling of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens: Comparison of 3 Methods
    Iremashvili, Viacheslav
    Lokeshwar, Soum D.
    Jorda, Merce
    Pelaez, Liset
    Soloway, Mark S.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 190 (01) : 84 - 90
  • [44] Relationship and significance of greatest percentage of tumor and perineural invasion on needle biopsy in prostatic adenocarcinoma
    Rubin, MA
    Bassily, N
    Sanda, M
    Montie, J
    Strawderman, MS
    Wojno, K
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2000, 24 (02) : 183 - 189
  • [45] Prognostic role of perineural invasion in prostate biopsy
    Gutierrez, C.
    Terrasa, F.
    Briones, G.
    Conde, G.
    Fuentes, I.
    Hidalgo, F.
    Bestard, J.
    Rebassa, M.
    ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2011, 35 (06): : 347 - 353
  • [46] Correlation of pretherapy prostate cancer characteristics with seminal vesicle invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens
    Pisansky, TM
    Blute, ML
    Suman, VJ
    Bostwick, DG
    Earle, JD
    Zincke, H
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1996, 36 (03): : 585 - 591
  • [47] Perineural Invasion Is a Prognostic Factor in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
    Kazuhisa Shirai
    Tomoki Ebata
    Koji Oda
    Hideki Nishio
    Tetsuro Nagasaka
    Yuji Nimura
    Masato Nagino
    World Journal of Surgery, 2008, 32 : 2395 - 2402
  • [48] Evaluation of lymphovascular invasion as a prognostic predictor of overall survival after radical prostatectomy
    Rakic, Nikola
    Jamil, Marcus
    Keeley, Jacob
    Sood, Akshay
    Vetterlein, Malte
    Dalela, Deepansh
    Arora, Sohrab
    Modonutti, Daniele
    Bronkema, Chandler
    Novara, Giacomo
    Peabody, James
    Rogers, Craig
    Menon, Mani
    Abdollah, Firas
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2021, 39 (08) : 495.e1 - 495.e6
  • [49] Perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy specimens - Correlation with extraprostatic extension at resection
    Vargas, SO
    Jiroutek, M
    Welch, WR
    Nucci, MR
    D'Amico, AV
    Renshaw, AA
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 1999, 111 (02) : 223 - 228
  • [50] Perineural invasion detection in prostate biopsy is related to recurrence-free survival in patients submitted to radical prostatectomy
    Katz, Betina
    Srougi, Miguel
    Dall'Oglio, Marcos
    Nesrallah, Adrian J.
    Sant'Anna, Alexandre C.
    Pontes, Jose, Jr.
    Antunes, Alberto A.
    Reis, Sabritia T.
    Viana, Nayara
    Sanudo, Adriana
    Camara-Lopes, Luiz H.
    Leite, Katia R. M.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2013, 31 (02) : 175 - 179