Search for residual prostate cancer on pT0 radical prostatectomy after positive biopsy

Roberta Mazzucchelli, Francesca Barbisan, Adriano Tagliabracci, Antonio Lopez-Beltran, Liang Cheng, Marina Scarpelli, Rodolfo Montironi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Reported incidence of no residual prostate cancer (i.e. pathological stage pT0) on radical prostatectomy ranges from 0.07 to 4.2%. The incidence is higher after neoadjuvant endocrine treatment. The aim of this study was to search for residual cancer on radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens when an initial sampling failed to find the cancer in patients with positive biopsy. Our database of 1,328 consecutive patients whose biopsies and RP specimen were both examined at the Polytechnic University-United Hospitals of the Marche Region between March 1995 and June 2006 was reviewed. The radical prostatectomies were grossly completely sampled and examined with the whole mount technique. We identified eight patients (i.e. 0.6%; three untreated and five hormonally treated preoperatively, i.e. 0.3 and 0.8%, respectively, of the total number of RPs included in the study) with positive biopsy and with no residual cancer in the initial routine histological examination of the RP. The RP of this group of eight was subjected to additional sectioning and evaluation of the paraffin blocks of the prostatectomy, also after block-flipping, immunostaining with an antibody against CAM 5.2, p63, PSA, and alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, and DNA specimen identity analysis. There were no cases with a false positive biopsy diagnosis, and cancer was not overlooked or missed in the initial routine histological examination of any of the 8 pT0 RPs. A minute focus of cancer (the diameter was always below 2.0 mm) was found on the additional sections in five. In particular, cancer was found after block-flipping in one of them. In an additional case, cancer was eventually discovered after immunostaining tissue sections for cytokeratin CAM 5.2, for p63 and PSA. In the remaining two cases (one untreated and the other hormonally treated), cancer was not found (0.15% of the 1,328 RPs included in the study); the review of the description of the macroscopic appearance of the RP and of its slides revealed that part of the peripheral zone corresponding to the site of the positive biopsy was missing, i.e. not removed from the patient at the time of the operation at least in one of the two. DNA specimen analysis confirmed the identity of the biopsy and prostatectomy in both. An extensive search for residual cancer reduces the number of pT0 RPs after a positive biopsy from 0.6 to 0.15%. It is recommended to have the needle biopsy reviewed, carefully look again at the radical prostatectomy, do deeper sections and then flip certain paraffin blocks. In addition, atypical foci should be stained for basal cell markers and often AMACR, especially in hormone-treated cases. If a block is missing part of the peripheral zone (capsular incision), this should be commented on. DNA analysis for tissue identity should be performed when the other steps have been taken without finding cancer.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)371-378
Number of pages8
JournalVirchows Archiv
Volume450
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2007

Fingerprint

Residual Neoplasm
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms
Biopsy
Neoplasms
Paraffin
DNA
Neoadjuvant Therapy
Incidence
Needle Biopsy
Databases
Hormones
Antibodies

Keywords

  • Prostate cancer
  • Residual prostate cancer
  • Vanishing cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Mazzucchelli, R., Barbisan, F., Tagliabracci, A., Lopez-Beltran, A., Cheng, L., Scarpelli, M., & Montironi, R. (2007). Search for residual prostate cancer on pT0 radical prostatectomy after positive biopsy. Virchows Archiv, 450(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-007-0367-x

Search for residual prostate cancer on pT0 radical prostatectomy after positive biopsy. / Mazzucchelli, Roberta; Barbisan, Francesca; Tagliabracci, Adriano; Lopez-Beltran, Antonio; Cheng, Liang; Scarpelli, Marina; Montironi, Rodolfo.

In: Virchows Archiv, Vol. 450, No. 4, 04.2007, p. 371-378.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mazzucchelli, R, Barbisan, F, Tagliabracci, A, Lopez-Beltran, A, Cheng, L, Scarpelli, M & Montironi, R 2007, 'Search for residual prostate cancer on pT0 radical prostatectomy after positive biopsy', Virchows Archiv, vol. 450, no. 4, pp. 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-007-0367-x
Mazzucchelli R, Barbisan F, Tagliabracci A, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L, Scarpelli M et al. Search for residual prostate cancer on pT0 radical prostatectomy after positive biopsy. Virchows Archiv. 2007 Apr;450(4):371-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-007-0367-x
Mazzucchelli, Roberta ; Barbisan, Francesca ; Tagliabracci, Adriano ; Lopez-Beltran, Antonio ; Cheng, Liang ; Scarpelli, Marina ; Montironi, Rodolfo. / Search for residual prostate cancer on pT0 radical prostatectomy after positive biopsy. In: Virchows Archiv. 2007 ; Vol. 450, No. 4. pp. 371-378.
@article{c70d8978af454ce09f3f751645c68591,
title = "Search for residual prostate cancer on pT0 radical prostatectomy after positive biopsy",
abstract = "Reported incidence of no residual prostate cancer (i.e. pathological stage pT0) on radical prostatectomy ranges from 0.07 to 4.2{\%}. The incidence is higher after neoadjuvant endocrine treatment. The aim of this study was to search for residual cancer on radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens when an initial sampling failed to find the cancer in patients with positive biopsy. Our database of 1,328 consecutive patients whose biopsies and RP specimen were both examined at the Polytechnic University-United Hospitals of the Marche Region between March 1995 and June 2006 was reviewed. The radical prostatectomies were grossly completely sampled and examined with the whole mount technique. We identified eight patients (i.e. 0.6{\%}; three untreated and five hormonally treated preoperatively, i.e. 0.3 and 0.8{\%}, respectively, of the total number of RPs included in the study) with positive biopsy and with no residual cancer in the initial routine histological examination of the RP. The RP of this group of eight was subjected to additional sectioning and evaluation of the paraffin blocks of the prostatectomy, also after block-flipping, immunostaining with an antibody against CAM 5.2, p63, PSA, and alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, and DNA specimen identity analysis. There were no cases with a false positive biopsy diagnosis, and cancer was not overlooked or missed in the initial routine histological examination of any of the 8 pT0 RPs. A minute focus of cancer (the diameter was always below 2.0 mm) was found on the additional sections in five. In particular, cancer was found after block-flipping in one of them. In an additional case, cancer was eventually discovered after immunostaining tissue sections for cytokeratin CAM 5.2, for p63 and PSA. In the remaining two cases (one untreated and the other hormonally treated), cancer was not found (0.15{\%} of the 1,328 RPs included in the study); the review of the description of the macroscopic appearance of the RP and of its slides revealed that part of the peripheral zone corresponding to the site of the positive biopsy was missing, i.e. not removed from the patient at the time of the operation at least in one of the two. DNA specimen analysis confirmed the identity of the biopsy and prostatectomy in both. An extensive search for residual cancer reduces the number of pT0 RPs after a positive biopsy from 0.6 to 0.15{\%}. It is recommended to have the needle biopsy reviewed, carefully look again at the radical prostatectomy, do deeper sections and then flip certain paraffin blocks. In addition, atypical foci should be stained for basal cell markers and often AMACR, especially in hormone-treated cases. If a block is missing part of the peripheral zone (capsular incision), this should be commented on. DNA analysis for tissue identity should be performed when the other steps have been taken without finding cancer.",
keywords = "Prostate cancer, Residual prostate cancer, Vanishing cancer",
author = "Roberta Mazzucchelli and Francesca Barbisan and Adriano Tagliabracci and Antonio Lopez-Beltran and Liang Cheng and Marina Scarpelli and Rodolfo Montironi",
year = "2007",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s00428-007-0367-x",
language = "English",
volume = "450",
pages = "371--378",
journal = "Virchows Archiv",
issn = "0945-6317",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Search for residual prostate cancer on pT0 radical prostatectomy after positive biopsy

AU - Mazzucchelli, Roberta

AU - Barbisan, Francesca

AU - Tagliabracci, Adriano

AU - Lopez-Beltran, Antonio

AU - Cheng, Liang

AU - Scarpelli, Marina

AU - Montironi, Rodolfo

PY - 2007/4

Y1 - 2007/4

N2 - Reported incidence of no residual prostate cancer (i.e. pathological stage pT0) on radical prostatectomy ranges from 0.07 to 4.2%. The incidence is higher after neoadjuvant endocrine treatment. The aim of this study was to search for residual cancer on radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens when an initial sampling failed to find the cancer in patients with positive biopsy. Our database of 1,328 consecutive patients whose biopsies and RP specimen were both examined at the Polytechnic University-United Hospitals of the Marche Region between March 1995 and June 2006 was reviewed. The radical prostatectomies were grossly completely sampled and examined with the whole mount technique. We identified eight patients (i.e. 0.6%; three untreated and five hormonally treated preoperatively, i.e. 0.3 and 0.8%, respectively, of the total number of RPs included in the study) with positive biopsy and with no residual cancer in the initial routine histological examination of the RP. The RP of this group of eight was subjected to additional sectioning and evaluation of the paraffin blocks of the prostatectomy, also after block-flipping, immunostaining with an antibody against CAM 5.2, p63, PSA, and alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, and DNA specimen identity analysis. There were no cases with a false positive biopsy diagnosis, and cancer was not overlooked or missed in the initial routine histological examination of any of the 8 pT0 RPs. A minute focus of cancer (the diameter was always below 2.0 mm) was found on the additional sections in five. In particular, cancer was found after block-flipping in one of them. In an additional case, cancer was eventually discovered after immunostaining tissue sections for cytokeratin CAM 5.2, for p63 and PSA. In the remaining two cases (one untreated and the other hormonally treated), cancer was not found (0.15% of the 1,328 RPs included in the study); the review of the description of the macroscopic appearance of the RP and of its slides revealed that part of the peripheral zone corresponding to the site of the positive biopsy was missing, i.e. not removed from the patient at the time of the operation at least in one of the two. DNA specimen analysis confirmed the identity of the biopsy and prostatectomy in both. An extensive search for residual cancer reduces the number of pT0 RPs after a positive biopsy from 0.6 to 0.15%. It is recommended to have the needle biopsy reviewed, carefully look again at the radical prostatectomy, do deeper sections and then flip certain paraffin blocks. In addition, atypical foci should be stained for basal cell markers and often AMACR, especially in hormone-treated cases. If a block is missing part of the peripheral zone (capsular incision), this should be commented on. DNA analysis for tissue identity should be performed when the other steps have been taken without finding cancer.

AB - Reported incidence of no residual prostate cancer (i.e. pathological stage pT0) on radical prostatectomy ranges from 0.07 to 4.2%. The incidence is higher after neoadjuvant endocrine treatment. The aim of this study was to search for residual cancer on radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens when an initial sampling failed to find the cancer in patients with positive biopsy. Our database of 1,328 consecutive patients whose biopsies and RP specimen were both examined at the Polytechnic University-United Hospitals of the Marche Region between March 1995 and June 2006 was reviewed. The radical prostatectomies were grossly completely sampled and examined with the whole mount technique. We identified eight patients (i.e. 0.6%; three untreated and five hormonally treated preoperatively, i.e. 0.3 and 0.8%, respectively, of the total number of RPs included in the study) with positive biopsy and with no residual cancer in the initial routine histological examination of the RP. The RP of this group of eight was subjected to additional sectioning and evaluation of the paraffin blocks of the prostatectomy, also after block-flipping, immunostaining with an antibody against CAM 5.2, p63, PSA, and alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase, and DNA specimen identity analysis. There were no cases with a false positive biopsy diagnosis, and cancer was not overlooked or missed in the initial routine histological examination of any of the 8 pT0 RPs. A minute focus of cancer (the diameter was always below 2.0 mm) was found on the additional sections in five. In particular, cancer was found after block-flipping in one of them. In an additional case, cancer was eventually discovered after immunostaining tissue sections for cytokeratin CAM 5.2, for p63 and PSA. In the remaining two cases (one untreated and the other hormonally treated), cancer was not found (0.15% of the 1,328 RPs included in the study); the review of the description of the macroscopic appearance of the RP and of its slides revealed that part of the peripheral zone corresponding to the site of the positive biopsy was missing, i.e. not removed from the patient at the time of the operation at least in one of the two. DNA specimen analysis confirmed the identity of the biopsy and prostatectomy in both. An extensive search for residual cancer reduces the number of pT0 RPs after a positive biopsy from 0.6 to 0.15%. It is recommended to have the needle biopsy reviewed, carefully look again at the radical prostatectomy, do deeper sections and then flip certain paraffin blocks. In addition, atypical foci should be stained for basal cell markers and often AMACR, especially in hormone-treated cases. If a block is missing part of the peripheral zone (capsular incision), this should be commented on. DNA analysis for tissue identity should be performed when the other steps have been taken without finding cancer.

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Residual prostate cancer

KW - Vanishing cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33947506388&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33947506388&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00428-007-0367-x

DO - 10.1007/s00428-007-0367-x

M3 - Article

C2 - 17285325

AN - SCOPUS:33947506388

VL - 450

SP - 371

EP - 378

JO - Virchows Archiv

JF - Virchows Archiv

SN - 0945-6317

IS - 4

ER -