Fomperoza-Torres Á, Valero A, González-Berjón J, Arista-Nasr J

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 87-93
PDF size: 161.01 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. With the routine use of prostatic specific antigen blood determination, sextant biopsies and immunohistochemical studies, focal carcinomas and atypical glandular proliferations (AGP), limited to isolated histologic fields are being detected more frequently. The recognition of these lesions is important since many of them correspond to potentially curable cancers or to benign lesions that mimic carcinoma. Material and methods. 1,000 consecutive prostatic biopsies performed during the period of 2000-2007 were reviewed. 42 focal prostatic lesions were retrieved. We reassessed the original HE slides. Additional histologic sections and immunohistochemical studies were performed in those cases with uncertain diagnoses in order to clarify the nature of the lesions. Results. Thirteen (1.3%) lesions corresponded to focal carcinomas and 29 (2.9%) to AGP. Immunohistochemical studies and the analysis of additional histologic sections allowed the classification of 17 cases of AGP into specific categories (prostatic adenosis, atrophy, atypical basal cell hyperplasia and seminiferous ducts). Only three of the 13 patients diagnosed with focal carcinomas were subjected to radical prostatectomy in our institution; all of them had disease limited to the prostatic gland. Of the 29 AGP, additional biopsies were taken in four cases and in one of them prostatic carcinoma was the final diagnosis. Conclusions. A significant number of AGP biopsies could be sub classified in to specific diagnostic categories with the use of immunohistochemical studies and additional HE levels. The frequency of focal carcinoma and AGP in our material was similar to other series; however in many of the AGP cases additional biopsies were not performed despite its high predictive value for carcinoma. Increase use of follow-up biopsy procedures is needed in order to detect early potentially curable lesions.

REFERENCES

1. Epstein JI. Interpretation of Prostate Biopsies. 3rd Ed. New York: Lippincott William & Wilkins; 2002.

2. Arista-Nasr J. Biopsia Prostática. Interpretación en producto de resección transuretral y biopsia por punción. México: Ángeles Editores; 2006.

3. Iczkowski KA. Current Prostate Biopsy Interpretation: Criteria for Cancer, Atypical Small Acinar Proliferation, High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia, and Use of Immunostains. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130: 835-43.

4. Cheville JC, Resnicek M, Bostwick DG. The focus of “atypical glands, suspicious for malignancy” in prostatic needle biopsy specimens: incidence, histologic features, and clinical followup of cases diagnosed in a community practice. Am J Clin Pathol 1997; 108: 633-40.

5. Iczkowski KA, Mc Lennan GT, Bostwick D. Atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy in prostate needle biopsies: clinical significance in 33 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1997; 12: 1489-95.

6. Girasole CR, Cooksoon MS, Putzi MJ, Chang SS. Significance of atypical and suspicious small acinar proliferations, and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on prostate biopsy: implications for cancer detection and biopsy strategy. J Urol 2006; 175: 929-33.

7. Chan TY, Epstein JI. Follow-up of atypical prostate needle biopsies suspicious for cancer. Urology 1999; 53: 351-5.

8. Iczkowski KA, Bostwick D. Criteria for biopsy diagnosis of minimal volume prostatic adenocarcinoma: analytic comparison with non diagnostic but suspicious atypical small acinar proliferation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124: 98-107.

9. Allen AE, Kahane H, Epstein JI. Repeat biopsy strategies for men with atypical diagnoses on initial prostate needle biopsy. Urology 1998; 52: 803-7.

10. Montesino SM, Jiménez A, Fernández SP, Sarmiento GC. Minimal prostatic adenocarcinomas in the biopsy treated with radical prostatectomy. Actas Urol Esp 2005; 29: 481-4.

11. Leroy X, Aubert S, Villers A, Ballereau C, Augusto D, Gosselin B. Minimal focus of adenocarcinoma on prostate biopsy: clinicopathological correlations. J Clin Pathol 2003; 56: 230-2.

12. Van der Kwast TH, Postma R, Hoedemaeker RF, van Lenders GJ. Features of prostate cancers detected during a prevalence screening round. The Rotterdam experience. Can J Urol 2005; 12: 16-20.

13. DiGiuseppe JA, Savaeugot J, Epstein JI. Increasing incidence of minimal residual cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 1997; 21: 174-8.

14. Arista-Nasr, Cortes E, Keirns C, Hatchett A, Loria A. Diagnostic concordance in biopsies of deceptive prostatic carcinoma. Rev Invest Clin 1996; 48: 289-96.

15. Arista-Nasr J, Keirns C. The focus of “atypical glands, suspicious for malignancy” in prostatic needle biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1998; 110: 409.