Mp74-06 Quantification of Perineural Cancer Invasion on Prostate Needle Core Biopsy Is Useful for Risk Stratification in Patients With Grade Group 2 or 3 Cancer, but Not in Those With Grade Group 4-5 Cancer

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection & Screening VI (MP74), Moderated Poster 741 May 2024MP74-06 QUANTIFICATION OF PERINEURAL CANCER INVASION ON PROSTATE NEEDLE CORE BIOPSY IS USEFUL FOR RISK STRATIFICATION IN PATIENTS WITH GRADE GROUP 2 OR 3 CANCER, BUT NOT IN THOSE WITH GRADE GROUP 4-5 CANCER Yuki Teramoto, Ying Wang, and Hiroshi Miyamoto Yuki TeramotoYuki Teramoto , Ying WangYing Wang , and Hiroshi MiyamotoHiroshi Miyamoto View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008632.59099.b9.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Perineural invasion (PNI) on prostate needle core biopsy has been implicated as a predictor of adverse pathological features. Moreover, a recent study suggested that multifocal PNI on systematic biopsy, even that detected in a single biopsy site, was associated with significantly worse postoperative outcomes, compared with a single focus of PNI. We herein determined the prognostic role of PNI quantification separately in subgroups of patients based on Grade Group (GG) on biopsy. METHODS: We assessed consecutive 840 patients undergoing systematic sextant prostate biopsy followed by radical prostatectomy from 2010-2016. We quantified actual PNI foci in the entire biopsy specimens and compared long-term oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: No PNI was detected in 580 (69%) biopsies, whereas 1 (n=156; 19%), 2 (n=53; 6%), 3 (n=21; 3%), 4 (n=13; 2%), and 5-10 (n=17; 2%) PNI foci were present in other cases. In the entire cohort, we confirmed a significantly higher risk of biochemical recurrence in patients with PNI (vs. no PNI; p<0.001) or multifocal PNI (vs. single PNI; p<0.001), while the difference in recurrence-free survival between 0 vs. 1 PIN was not statistically significant (p=0.106) (see Figure 1 and Table 1). In subgroup analysis, marginal and significant differences in the risk of recurrence between single vs. multifocal PNI were seen in patients with GG1 cancer (p=0.056) and GG2 (p<0.001) or GG3 (p<0.001) cancer, respectively, but not in those with GG4 (p=0.214) or GG5 (p=0.484) cancer. By contrast, the prognostic impact of the presence (vs. absence) of PNI was observed in patients with GG3 (p<0.001) or GG4 (p=0.003) cancer, but not in those with GG1 (p=0.870) or GG2 (p=0.307) cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that PNI quantification on biopsy provides useful information for more accurate risk stratification particularly in patients with GG2-3 prostate cancer. Meanwhile, the presence of PNI may not necessarily be a strong prognosticator (e.g. GG1-2 cancer). Download PPT Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1195 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Yuki Teramoto More articles by this author Ying Wang More articles by this author Hiroshi Miyamoto More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...