Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Impact of the extent of extraprostatic extension defined by Epstein’s method in patients with negative surgical margins and negative lymph node invasion

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 19, pages 317–321 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

To assess the impact of the degree of extraprostatic extension (EPE) on biochemical recurrence (BCR) and utility of the original Epstein’s criteria to define EPE in a cohort of pT3aN0 without positive surgical margin (PSM).

METHODS:

A two-center retrospective analysis was performed on data from 490 pT3aN0 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy between 2000 and 2012. Patients with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy, detectable PSA and PSM were excluded. Our pathologists used Epstein’s criteria to report the degree of EPE. When pathology reports did not reflect the terms 'focal' or 'established' (non-focal), slides were analyzed by a single genitourinary pathologist for final evaluation. The end point was defined by BCR.

RESULTS:

Selection criteria yielded 247 patients. Mean follow-up was 56.3±4.6 months; mean age at surgery was 62.5 years. Sixty-one (24.7%) patients experienced BCR during follow-up. Patients with focal extension had a 5-year recurrence-free survival of 89% versus 80% for those with non-focal extension (P=0.0018). In multivariate analysis, both pathologic Gleason score (hazard ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval 1.4–4.5; P=0.002) and the extent of EPE (hazard ratio 1.8; 95% confidence interval 1.1–3.5; P=0.029) were significant predictors of BCR.

CONCLUSIONS:

The extent of EPE is an independent predictor of BCR in pT3aN0 prostate cancer without PSM. This study reinforces the utility of the subjective Epstein approach already adopted by most pathologists for quantification of the extent of EPE.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Srigley JR . Key issues in handling and reporting radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006; 130: 303–317.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng L, Darson MF, Bergstralh EJ, Slezak J, Myers RP, Bostwick DG . Correlation of margin status and extraprostatic extension with progression of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 86: 1775–1782.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Swanson GP, Riggs M, Hermans M . Pathologic findings at radical prostatectomy: risk factors for failure and death. Urol Oncol. 2007; 25: 110–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Pizov G, Walsh PC . Influence of capsular penetration on progression following radical prostatectomy: a study of 196 cases with long-term followup. J Urol. 1993; 150: 135–141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, Arakawa A, Soh S, Suyama K et al. Clinical and pathological significance of the level and extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol. 1998; 29: 856–862.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis BJ, Pisansky TM, Wilson TM, Rothenberg HJ, Pacelli A, Hillman DW et al. The radial distance of extraprostatic extension of prostate carcinoma: implications for prostate brachytherapy. Cancer 1999; 85: 2630–2637.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sung M-T, Lin H, Koch MO, Davidson DD, Cheng L . Radial distance of extraprostatic extension measured by ocular micrometer is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence: a new proposal for the substaging of pT3a prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007; 31: 311–318.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Magi- Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Van der Kwast TH et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Modern Pathol 2011; 24: 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ . Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol. 2004; 172: 910–914.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Danneman D, Wiklund F, Wiklund NP, Egevad L . Prognostic significance of histopathological features of extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer. Histopathology 2013; 63: 580–589.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ball MW, Partin AW, Epstein JI . Extent of extraprostatic extension independently influences biochemical recurrence-free survival: evidence for further pT3 subclassification. Urology 2015; 85: 161–164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jeong BC, Chalfin HJ, Lee SB, Feng Z, Epstein JI, Trock BJ et al. The relationship between the extent of extraprostatic extension and survival following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 342–346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schmid HP, McNeal JE . An abbreviated standard procedure for accurate tumor volume estimation in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992; 16: 184–191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WCJ, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228–1242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ohori M, Wheeler TM, Kattan MW, Goto Y, Scardino PT . Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 1995; 154: 1818–1824.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 303–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Budäus L, Isbarn H, Eichelberg C, Lughezzani G, Sun M, Perrotte P et al. Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: multiplicative interaction between surgical margin status and pathological stage. J Urol. 2010; 184: 1341–1346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Tomaszewski JE, Wein A . Prostate specific antigen outcome based on the extent of extracapsular extension and margin status in patients with seminal vesicle negative prostate carcinoma of Gleason score < or = 7. Cancer 2000; 88: 2110–2115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson MT, Ramsey ML, Ebel JJ, Abaza R, Zynger DL et al. Do robotic prostatectomy positive surgical margins occur in the same location as extraprostatic extension? World J Urol 2014; 32: 761–767.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sakr WA, Tefilli MV, Grignon DJ, Banerjee M, Dey J, Gheiler EL et al. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer: a heterogeneous entity? correlation with pathologic parameters and disease-free survival. Urology 2000; 56: 730–734.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cheng L, Montironi R, Bostwick DG, Lopez-Beltran A, Berney DM . Staging of prostate cancer. Histopathology 2012; 60: 87–117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ayala AG, Ro JY, Babaian R, Troncoso P, Grignon DJ . The prostatic capsule: does it exist? Its importance in the staging and treatment of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1989; 13: 21–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van Veggel BAMH, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Kiemeney LALM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA . Quantification of extraprostatic extension in prostate cancer: different parameters correlated to biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Histopathology 2011; 59: 692–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, Assistance Publique des Hopitaux de Marseille, Hopital Nord, Marseille, France

    T Maubon, N Branger, C Bastide & D Rossi

  2. Laboratoire INSERM U1153 Centre de recherche Epidémiologique et Statistique de la Sorbonne, Paris Cité, France

    G Lonjon

  3. Urology Department, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France

    K-A Harvey-Bryan, X Cathelineau & F Rozet

  4. Pathology Department, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France

    P Validire

  5. Pathology Department, Assistance Publique des Hopitaux de Marseille, Hopital Nord, Marseille, France

    S Giusiano

Authors
  1. T Maubon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N Branger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C Bastide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G Lonjon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K-A Harvey-Bryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P Validire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S Giusiano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. D Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. X Cathelineau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. F Rozet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N Branger.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maubon, T., Branger, N., Bastide, C. et al. Impact of the extent of extraprostatic extension defined by Epstein’s method in patients with negative surgical margins and negative lymph node invasion. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 19, 317–321 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.24

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.24

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links