The accuracy of pathological data for the prediction of insignificant prostate cancer

• Main Author: Katz,Betina
• Publication Date: 2012
• Other Authors: Srougi,Miguel, Camara-Lopes,Luiz H., Antunes,Alberto A., Nesrallah,Luciano, Nesrallah,Adriano, Dall'Oglio,Marcos, Leite,Katia R. M.
• Format: Article
• Language: eng
• Source: International Braz J Urol (Online)
• Download full: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382012000600760
• topic: Prostate cancer; Prostate; Gleason score; Diagnosis

Introduction The widespread screening programs prompted a decrease in prostate cancer stage at diagnosis, and active surveillance is an option for patients who may harbor clinically insignificant prostate cancer (IPC). Pathologists include the possibility of an IPC in their reports based on the Gleason score and tumor volume. This study determined the accuracy of pathological data in the identification of IPC in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. Materials and Methods Of 592 radical prostatectomy specimens examined in our laboratory from 2001 to 2010, 20 patients harbored IPC and exhibited biopsy findings suggestive of IPC. These biopsy features served as the criteria to define patients with potentially insignificant tumor in this population. The results of the prostate biopsies and surgical specimens of the 592 patients were compared. Results The twenty patients who had IPC in both biopsy and RP were considered real positive cases. All patients were divided into groups based on their diagnoses following RP: true positives (n = 20), false positives (n = 149), true negatives (n = 421), false negatives (n = 2). The accuracy of the pathological data alone for the prediction of IPC was 91.4%, the sensitivity was 91% and the specificity was 74%. Conclusion The identification of IPC using pathological data exclusively is accurate, and pathologists should suggest this in their reports to aid surgeons, urologists and radiotherapists to decide the best treatment for their patients.