METHODS: Study subjects included men with initial PSA between 4.0 and 10.0 ng/ml that have undergone 12-core TRUS-guided prostate biopsy between 2009 and 2016. The prostate cancer detection rate was calculated, while potential factors associated with detection were investigated via univariable and multivariable analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 617 men from a multi-ethnic background encompassing Chinese (63.5%), Malay (23.1%) and Indian (13.3%) were studied. The overall cancer detection rate was 14.3% (88/617), which included cancers detected at biopsy 1 (first biopsy), biopsy 2 (second biopsy with previous negative biopsy) and biopsy ≥ 3 (third or more biopsies with prior negative biopsies). Indian men displayed higher detection rate (23.2%) and increased risk of prostate cancer development (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.03-3.32, p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 2015 to August 2016, all men consecutively undergoing transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy with total PSA values ≤ 20ng/ ml were recruited. Blood samples were taken immediately before undergoing prostate biopsy. The performance of total PSA, %fPSA, %p2PSA and PHI in determining the presence of PCa on prostate biopsy were compared.
RESULTS: PCa was diagnosed in 25 of 84 patients (29.7%). %p2PSA and PHI values were significantly higher (p<0.05) in patients with PCa than those without PCa. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for total PSA, %fPSA, %p2PSA and PHI were 0.558, 0.560, 0.734 and 0.746, respectively. At 90% sensitivity, the specificity of PHI (42.4%) was five times better than total PSA (8.5%) and two times better than %fPSA (20.3%). By utilising PHI cut-off >22.52, 27 of 84 (32.1%) patients could have avoided undergoing biopsy.
CONCLUSION: Findings of our study support the potential clinical effectiveness of PHI in predicting PCa in a wider concentration range of total PSA up to 20ng/ml.
CASE REPORT: A 40-year-old Japanese man presented with lower abdominal pain. Computed tomography revealed a prostatic mass; furthermore, prostate core needle biopsy revealed proliferating bland spindle cells, without necrosis or prominent mitoses. Tumour cells were positive for CD34 and progesterone receptor on immunohistochemical analysis; thus, a prostatic stromal tumour of uncertain malignant potential was initially suspected. However, as the tumour cells showed positive immunoreactivity for STAT6, the final diagnosis was an SFT of the prostate. The patient underwent tumour resection, and at the 6-month postoperative follow-up, neither local recurrence nor distant metastasis occurred.
CONCLUSION: For an accurate diagnosis of an SFT of the prostate, STAT6 immunohistochemistry should be conducted for all mesenchymal tumours of the prostate. When STAT6 immunohistochemical analysis is unfeasible, pathologists should be aware that the morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics of SFT variable from case to case and diagnose with combined analysis of several immunohistochemical markers.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We established a multi-national, longitudinal, observational registry of patients with prostate cancer presenting to participating tertiary care hospitals in eight Asian countries. A total of 3636 eligible patients with existing or newly diagnosed high-risk localised prostate cancer (HRL), non-metastatic biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (M0), or metastatic prostate cancer (M1), were consecutively enrolled and are being followed-up for 5 years. Patient history, demographic and disease characteristics, treatment and treatment decisions, were collected at first prostate cancer diagnosis and at enrolment. Patient-reported quality of life was prospectively assessed using the European Quality of Life-five Dimensions, five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Prostate Cancer questionnaires. In the present study, we report the first interim analysis of 2063 patients enrolled from study start (15 September 2015) until 18 May 2017.
RESULTS: Of the 2063 enrolled patients, 357 (17%), 378 (19%), and 1328 (64%) had HRL, M0 or M1 prostate cancer, respectively. The mean age at first diagnosis was similar in each group, 56% of all patients had extracapsular extension of their tumour, 28% had regional lymph node metastasis, and 53% had distant metastases. At enrolment, 62% of patients had at least one co-morbidity (mainly cardiovascular disease or diabetes), 91.8% of M1 patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of <2 and the mean EQ-5D-5L visual analogue score was 74.6-79.6 across cohorts. Treatment of M1 patients was primarily with combined androgen blockade (58%) or androgen-deprivation therapy (either orchidectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogues) (32%). Decisions to start therapy were mainly driven by treatment guidelines and disease progression. Decision to discontinue therapy was most often due to disease progression (hormonal drug therapy) or completion of therapy (chemotherapy).
CONCLUSION: In the UFO registry of advanced prostate cancer in Asia, regional differences exist in prostate cancer treatment patterns that will be explored more deeply during the follow-up period; prospective follow-up is ongoing. The UFO registry will provide valuable descriptive data on current disease characteristics and treatment landscape amongst patients with prostate cancer in Asia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight specimens of needle prostate biopsy and its subsequent radical prostatectomy were retrospectively studied. The GSs of the needle biopsy were compared with the corresponding prostatectomy specimens. The percentage of GP4 in GS7 needle biopsy groups was calculated and correlated with the pathological staging.
RESULTS: More than half (60%) of GS 6 needle biopsy cases (PGG 1) were upgraded in the prostatectomy specimen, while the majority (80%) of the GS7 needle biopsy groups (PGG 2 and 3) remain unchanged. Cohen's Kappa shows fair agreement in the Gleason scoring between needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens, K = 0.324 (95% CI, 6.94 to 7.29), p <0.0005 and in the percentage of GP4 in GS7 needle biopsy groups and their corresponding radical prostatectomy specimens, K = 0.399 (95% CI 34.2 - 49.2), p<0.0005. A significant relationship was seen between the percentage of GP4 in GS7 needle biopsy with the pT and pN stage of its radical prostatectomy (p = 0.008 and p=0.001 respectively).
CONCLUSION: A higher percentage of GP4 in GS7 tumour is associated with worse tumour behaviour, therefore it is crucial for clinicians to realise this in deciding the optimal treatment.