Purpose To analyze controversial clinicopathologic predictors of biochemical recurrence after surgery: age, race, tumor extent on surgical specimen, tumor extent on needle biopsy, Gleason score 3 + 4 vs 4 + 3, and amount of extent of extraprostatic extension and positive surgical margins. Materials and Methods The needle biopsies and the correspondent surgical specimens were analyzed from 400 patients. Time to recurrence was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier curves and risk of shorter time to recurrence using Cox univariate and multivariate analysis. Results Except for age, race, maximum percentage of cancer per core, and number of cores with cancer, all other variables studied were significantly predictive of time to biochemical recurrence using the Kaplan-Meier curves. In univariate analysis, except for focal extraprostatic extension, age, race, focal positive surgical margins, and maximum extent and percentage of cancer per core, all other variables were significantly predictive of shorter time to recurrence. On multivariate analysis, diffuse positive surgical margins and preoperative PSA were independent predictors. Conclusions Young patients and non-whites were not significantly associated with time to biochemical recurrence. The time consuming tumor extent evaluation in surgical specimens seems not to add additional information to other well established predictive findings. The higher predictive value of Gleason score 4 + 3 = 7 vs 3 + 4 = 7 discloses the importance of grade 4 as the predominant pattern. Extent and not simply presence or absent of extraprostatic extension should be informed. Most tumor extent evaluations on needle biopsies are predictive of time to biochemical recurrence, however, maximum percentage of cancer in all cores was the strongest predictor.

PURPOSE: Perineural invasion (PNI) on needle prostatic biopsies (NPB) has been controversial as a marker of extraprostatic extension and consequently for planning of nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP). The aim of this study was to find whether tumor extent on NPB influences the value of PNI to predict stage > pT2 on RP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was based on 264 consecutive patients submitted to radical retropubic prostatectomy. Their NPB were matched with whole-mount processed and totally embedded surgical specimens. Tumor extent on NPB was evaluated as the percentage of linear tissue in mm containing carcinoma in all cores. Considering the median value, patients were stratified into 2 groups: harboring less or more extensive tumors on NPB. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to relate stage > pT2 to PNI and other clinical and pathological variables. RESULTS: In patients with more extensive tumors, PNI was predictive of stage > pT2 in univariate analysis but not in multivariate analysis. In less extensive tumors, PNI showed no association between any clinical or pathological variables studied; no difference in the time to biochemical progression-free status compared to patients without PNI; and, no predictive value for pathological stage > pT2 on both univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: Tumor extent on NPB influences the predictive value of PNI for pathologic stage > pT2 on RP. With a higher number of small tumors currently detected, there is no evidence that perineural invasion should influence the decision on preservation of the nerve during radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence showing that Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma is one of the most powerful predictors of biological behavior and one of the most influential factors used to determine treatment for prostate cancer. The aim of the current study was to compare the Gleason score for needle biopsy to the Gleason score for the correspondent surgical specimen, find any possible difference in the biochemical (PSA) progression following surgery in upgraded cases, correlate Gleason score in the specimens to several clinicopathologic variables, and compare outcomes between patients with low-grade vs. high-grade Gleason and Gleason scores 3+4 vs. 4+3. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 200 consecutive patients submitted to radical prostatectomy. Biochemical progression was defined as PSA > 0.2 ng/mL. Time to PSA progression was studied using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit analysis. RESULTS: In 47.1% of the cases, there was an exact correlation and 40.6% of cases were underestimated in the biopsies. Half of the tumors graded Gleason 6 at biopsy were Gleason score 7 at surgery. These upgraded tumors had outcomes similar to tumors with Gleason score 7 in both biopsy and surgery. There was a positive correlation of high-grade Gleason score in the surgical specimens to higher preoperative PSA, more extensive tumors, positive margins and more advanced pathologic staging. Tumors with a Gleason score > 7 have lower PSA progression-free survival vs. Gleason scores < 7. In this series, there was no significant difference when comparing Gleason scores of 3+4 vs. 4+3. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the importance of Gleason grading for nomograms, which are used by clinicians to counsel individual patients and help them make important decisions regarding their disease.