Cargando…

Should all specimens taken during surgical treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia be assessed by a pathologist?

INTRODUCTION: In some patients submitted to transurethral resection of the prostatic (TURP) or prostatectomy (OAE) due to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), pathological evaluations (PE) revealed coexistence of prostate cancer (PCa) and BPH. The aim of the study is to evaluate the incidence of PCa d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Skrzypczyk, Michał Andrzej, Dobruch, Jakub, Nyk, Łukasz, Szostek, Przemysław, Szempliński, Stanisław, Borówka, Andrzej
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Polish Urological Association 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25247076
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2014.03.art2
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: In some patients submitted to transurethral resection of the prostatic (TURP) or prostatectomy (OAE) due to benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), pathological evaluations (PE) revealed coexistence of prostate cancer (PCa) and BPH. The aim of the study is to evaluate the incidence of PCa diagnosed incidentally in prostate specimens taken during BPH surgery, to assess the need of routine PE and to define the group of patients in whom PE could be abandoned without the risk of omitting clinically significant PCa. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 968 consecutive men were subjected to surgical treatment due to BPH in Jan. 2004–Sep. 2010. RESULTS: 823 (85%) underwent TURP and 145 (15%) OAE. Incidental (Inc) PCa was diagnosed in 34(3.5%) pts. T1a and T1b stages were determined in 19 (2%) and 15 (1.5%) cases. Preoperative prostate biopsy due to abnormal prostate specific antigen (PSA) or digital rectal exam (DRE) was performed in 85 (8.8%) pts. Of PCa pts, 7 (20.58%) had undergone a cancer negative biopsy preoperatively. In BPH pts, 78 (8.35%) had undergone a prostate biopsy previously (p <0.01). Univariate and logit regression analyses had not revealed any correlations between age, Pv, serum PSA and frequency of IncPCa. The difference in rate of PCa diagnosed in patients with PSAD ≥0.15 and <0.15 was 8 pts (14.04%) and 20 pts (4.05%), respectively (p <0.001). Gls in those pts was >6 only in 4 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact of low PCa detection rate observed in our study, this condition was clinically relevant in 15 (1.5%) subjects. It is difficult to establish any cut off values of pts’ age, Pv, serum PSA level suggestive of negligible risk for prostate cancer.