Premium
Do all patients with high‐grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on initial prostatic biopsy eventually progress to clinical prostate cancer?
Author(s) -
Izawa Jonathan I.,
Lega Iliana,
Downey Donal,
Chin Joseph L.,
Luke Patrick P.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2005.05623.x
Subject(s) - medicine , biopsy , intraepithelial neoplasia , prostate cancer , prostate , high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia , transrectal ultrasonography , cancer , prostate biopsy , rectal examination , urology , prostate specific antigen , radiology
OBJECTIVE To assess the clinical outcome of patients with a diagnosis of high‐grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) on initial prostatic biopsy, with a minimum of 5 years of follow‐up, as such patients are at greater risk of having prostate cancer on subsequent biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between November 1992 and October 1998, 21 patients were identified as having PIN on their initial transrectal ultrasonography‐guided prostate biopsy. None of these patients had a focus of cancer on the initial biopsy. Their medical data were reviewed retrospectively to determine the natural history of PIN in these patients. Patients who were not identified as having cancer were followed every 6–12 months with prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examinations (DRE). RESULTS A mean (range) of 7 (2–8) cores were taken at initial biopsy; the mean age of the patients was 63 (53–77) years and mean PSA level 9.1 (4.9–17.6) ng/mL. Six patients had an abnormal DRE at presentation. A mean of 8 (7–10) cores were obtained on the second biopsy; six patients were diagnosed with cancer, with a mean Gleason score of 6 (5–7), while three were diagnosed with persistent PIN. These three patients had a third prostate biopsy which showed cancer of Gleason score 6 in one and benign prostatic hyperplasia in two. After a mean follow‐up of 72.2 (60–84) months, none of the remaining 12 patients was diagnosed with clinically significant cancer. Five of these patients went on to a third prostate biopsy, with no evidence of cancer. One patient died from unrelated causes during this period. CONCLUSION This study affirms our current practice of following patients with PIN conservatively if a second or third subsequent prostate biopsy is negative. Whether PIN is a premalignant lesion or merely a lesion associated with cancer needs to be addressed in multicentre studies with a follow‐up of > 10 years.