» Articles » PMID: 19473479

Risk of Prostate Cancer After Detection of Isolated High-grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia (HGPIN) on Extended Core Needle Biopsy: a UK Hospital Experience

Overview
Journal BMC Urol
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Urology
Date 2009 May 29
PMID 19473479
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) is a precursor lesion to prostate cancer (CaP). UK-based studies examining the occurrence of isolated HGPIN and subsequent risk of CaP are lacking. Our aim was to assess the occurrence of HGPIN in a regional UK population and to determine whether in a retrievable cohort of such patients that had repeat extended core biopsies, there was an elevated risk of CaP.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of the pathology database was conducted at our institution (Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) for prostate biopsies recorded between January 2001 and December 2005 (all extended core biopsies). Those patients with isolated HGPIN on 1st set of biopsies were identified and, their clinical characteristics and pathological findings from subsequent biopsies (if any) were determined. The risk of CaP on subsequent biopsies based on presenting baseline PSA was stratified.

Results: Of 2,192 biopsied patients, there were 88 cases of isolated HGPIN of which 67 patients underwent one or more repeat biopsies. In this repeat-biopsy group, 28 CaP diagnoses were made. Age at first biopsy (P < 0.001), higher mean baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (P < 0.005) and higher mean change in PSA (P < 0.05) were predictive of CaP detection on repeat biopsies. PSA ranges and their associated predictive values for cancer were: 0 to 5 ng/ml - 11%; 5 to 10 ng/ml - 34%; 10 to 20 ng/ml - 50%; and > 20 ng/ml - 87.5%.

Conclusion: Based on our results, we recommend delaying the 1st repeat biopsy at low PSA range but to have a shorter interval to repeat biopsies at intermediate and higher PSA ranges.

Citing Articles

Atypical Small Acinar Proliferation and High Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia: Should We Be Concerned? An Observational Cohort Study with a Minimum Follow-Up of 3 Years.

Srirangam V, Rai B, Abroaf A, Agarwal S, Tadtayev S, Foley C Curr Urol. 2017; 10(4):199-205.

PMID: 29234263 PMC: 5704718. DOI: 10.1159/000447181.


Managing high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and atypical glands on prostate biopsy.

Tosoian J, Alam R, Ball M, Carter H, Epstein J Nat Rev Urol. 2017; 15(1):55-66.

PMID: 28858331 DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2017.134.


Prediction of pathological and oncological outcomes based on extended prostate biopsy results in patients with prostate cancer receiving radical prostatectomy: a single institution study.

Ishizaki F, Hara N, Koike H, Kawaguchi M, Tadokoro A, Takizawa I Diagn Pathol. 2012; 7:68.

PMID: 22697234 PMC: 3449198. DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-7-68.

References
1.
Moore C, Karikehalli S, Nazeer T, Fisher H, Kaufman Jr R, Mian B . Prognostic significance of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation in the contemporary era. J Urol. 2004; 173(1):70-2. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000148260.69779.c5. View

2.
Sirovich B, Schwartz L, Woloshin S . Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence?. JAMA. 2003; 289(11):1414-20. DOI: 10.1001/jama.289.11.1414. View

3.
Sakr W, Grignon D, Haas G . Pathology of premalignant lesions and carcinoma of the prostate in African-American men. Semin Urol Oncol. 1998; 16(4):214-20. View

4.
Lefkowitz G, Sidhu G, Torre P, Lepor H, Taneja S . Is repeat prostate biopsy for high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia necessary after routine 12-core sampling?. Urology. 2001; 58(6):999-1003. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01436-4. View

5.
Herawi M, Kahane H, Cavallo C, Epstein J . Risk of prostate cancer on first re-biopsy within 1 year following a diagnosis of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is related to the number of cores sampled. J Urol. 2006; 175(1):121-4. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00064-9. View