Urology
Volume 72, Issue 3 , Pages 638-640 , September 2008

A Clinicopathologic Study of Preoperative and Postoperative Findings with Minute Gleason 3+3=6 Cancer at Radical Prostatectomy

  • Adeboye O. Osunkoya

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
    • Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
    • ,
  • H. Ballentine Carter

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
    • Department of Oncology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. Currently at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
    • ,
  • Jonathan I. Epstein

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
    • Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
    • Department of Oncology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. Currently at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Jonathan I. Epstein, M.D., Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, The Weinberg Building, Room 2242, 401 N. Broadway Street, Baltimore, MD 21231

Received 26 November 2007 ,Accepted 2 January 2008.

References 

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(1):43–66
  2. 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;170(2 Pt 1):370–372
  3. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, et al. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors: a contemporary analysis. Cancer. 2004;101(9):2001–2005
  4. Chan TY, Chan DY, Stutzman KL, et al. Does increased needle biopsy sampling of the prostate detect a higher number of potentially insignificant tumors?. J Urol. 2001;166(6):2181–2184
  5. Cheng L, Poulos CK, Pan CX, et al. Preoperative prediction of small volume cancer (less than 0.5 ml) in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2005;174(3):898–902
  6. DiGiuseppe JA, Sauvageot J, Epstein JI. Increasing incidence of minimal residual cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(2):174–178
  7. Truskinovsky AM, Sanderson H, Epstein JI. Characterization of minute adenocarcinomas of prostate at radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2004;64(4):733–737
  8. Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: for whom?. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(32):8165–8169
  9. Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2359–2364discussion 2364–2365
  10. Giovannucci E, Kantoff P, Spiegelman D, et al. The epidemic of prostate cancer and the medical literature: a causal association?. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 1998;1(3):148–153
  11. Sebo TJ, Bock BJ, Cheville JC, et al. The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000;163(1):174–178
  12. Grossklaus DJ, Coffey CS, Shappell SB, et al. Percent of cancer in the biopsy set predicts pathological findings after prostatectomy. J Urol. 2002;167(5):2032–2035discussion 2036
  13. Poulos CK, Daggy JK, Cheng L. Prostate needle biopsies: multiple variables are predictive of final tumor volume in radical prostatectomy specimens. Cancer. 2004;101(3):527–532
  14. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271(5):368–374
  15. Angulo JC, Montie JE, Bukowsky T. Interobserver consistency of digital rectal examination in clinical setting of localized prostatic carcinoma. Urol Oncol. 1995;1:199–205
  16. Scardino PT, Weaver R, Hudson MA. Early detection of prostate cancer. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(3):211–222
  17. Stamey TA, Caldwell M, McNeal JE, et al. The prostate specific antigen era in the united states is over for prostate cancer: what happened in the last 20 years?. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 1):1297–1301
  18. Raaijmakers R, Blijenberg BG, Finlay JA, et al. Prostate cancer detection in the prostate specific antigen range of 2.0 to 3.9 ng/ml: value of percent free prostate specific antigen on tumor detection and tumor aggressiveness. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2245–2249
  19. Steinberg DM, Sauvageot J, Piantadosi S, et al. Correlation of prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason grade in academic and community settings. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21(5):566–576

PII: S0090-4295(08)00007-1

doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.01.004

Urology
Volume 72, Issue 3 , Pages 638-640 , September 2008

Article Tools