Objectives: To assess correlations between concomitant high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN), pathological features and oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP). Material and Methods: We prospectively collected a single-institution database of 2,351 patients who underwent RP between 1998 and 2011. Results: 1,272 (54.1%) patients had HGPIN on specimens. The mean follow-up was 28 months. Presence of HGPIN was significantly associated with a favorable preoperative risk status and with pathological factors of poor prognosis in RP specimens. Patients without HGPIN had a worse biochemical recurrence-free survival compared with those with HGPIN in RP specimen (log-rank test: p = 0.015). The 3-year RFS rate was 73.9% for the HGPIN group versus 67.2%. The absence of HGPIN was also significantly correlated with the use of androgen deprivation treatment during the follow-up (p < 0.001). In Cox multivariate analysis, taking into account the other prognostic pathological factors, HGPIN was not an independent predictive factor for PSA failure (p = 0.868). Conclusion: HGPIN is associated with factors of good prognosis but fails to show independent significance when classical pathological prognostic factors are taken into account.

Keywords:
Prostate neoplasm, Prostatectomy, Intraepithelial neoplasia, Recurrence
1.
Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L, Scarpelli M: Mechanisms of disease: high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and other proposed preneoplastic lesions in the prostate. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2007;4:321-332.
2.
O'dowd GJ, Miller MC, Orozco R, Veltri RW: Analysis of repeated biopsy results within 1 year after a noncancer diagnosis. Urology 2000;55:553-559.
3.
Schlesinger C, Bostwick DG, Iczkowski KA: High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation: predictive value for cancer in current practice. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1201-1207.
4.
Epstein JI, Potter SR: The pathological interpretation and significance of prostate needle biopsy findings: implications and current controversies. J Urol 2001;166:402-410.
5.
Epstein JI, Herawi M: Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 2006;175:820-834.
6.
Pacelli A, Bostwick DG: Clinical significance of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in transurethral resection specimens. Urology 1997;50:355-359.
7.
Kovi J, Mostofi FK, Heshmat MY, Enterline JP: Large acinar atypical hyperplasia and carcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 1988;61:555-561.
8.
Utz DC, Farrow GM: Management of carcinoma in situ of the bladder: the case for surgical management. Urol Clin North Am 1980;7:533-541.
9.
Heney NM, Ahmed S, Flanagan MJ, Frable W, Corder MP, Hafermann MD, et al: Superficial bladder cancer: progression and recurrence. J Urol 1983;130:1083-1086.
10.
Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ: 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-2129.
11.
Arends MJ, Buckley CH, Wells M: Aetiology, pathogenesis, and pathology of cervical neoplasia. J Clin Pathol 1998;51:96-103.
12.
Horst KC, Smitt MC, Goffinet DR, Carlson RW: Predictors of local recurrence after breast-conservation therapy. Clin Breast Cancer 2005;5:425-438.
13.
McNeal JE, Bostwick DG: Intraductal dysplasia: a premalignant lesion of the prostate. Hum Pathol 1986;17:64-71.
14.
Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Haas GP, Heilbrun LK, Pontes JE, Crissman JD: Age and racial distribution of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Eur Urol 1996;30:138-144.
15.
Sakr WA: Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a marker for high-risk groups and a potential target for chemoprevention. Eur Urol 1999;35:474-478.
16.
Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Haas GP: Pathology of premalignant lesions and carcinoma of the prostate in African-American men. Semin Urol Oncol 1998;16:214-220.
17.
Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Algaba F, Lopez-Beltran A: Morphological identification of the patterns of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and their importance. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:655-665.
18.
Colombel M, Symmans F, Gil S, O'Toole KM, Chopin D, Benson M, et al: Detection of the apoptosis-suppressing oncoprotein bc1-2 in hormone-refractory human prostate cancers. Am J Pathol 1993;143:390-400.
19.
Montironi R, Galluzzi CM, Diamanti L, Giannulis I, Pisani E, Scarpelli M: Prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia: expression and location of proliferating cell nuclear antigen in epithelial, endothelial and stromal nuclei. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol 1993;422:185-192.
20.
Qian J, Bostwick DG, Takahashi S, Borell TJ, Herath JF, Lieber MM, et al: Chromosomal anomalies in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and carcinoma detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Cancer Res 1995;55:5408-5414.
21.
Bostwick DG, Qian J: High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod Pathol 2004;17:360-379.
22.
Qian J, Wollan P, Bostwick DG: The extent and multicentricity of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in clinically localized prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 1997;28:143-148.
23.
Brawer MK: Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a premalignant lesion. Hum Pathol 1992;23:242-248.
24.
Sylvester RJ, van der Meijden APM, Oosterlinck W, Witjes JA, Bouffioux C, Denis L, et al: Predicting recurrence and progression in individual patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer using EORTC risk tables: a combined analysis of 2596 patients from seven EORTC trials. Eur Urol 2006;49:466-465, discussion 475-477.
25.
Pierorazio PM, Lambert SM, Matsukhani M, Sprenkle PC, McCann TR, Katz AE, et al: High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is an independent predictor of outcome after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2007;100:1066-1070.
26.
Balaji KC, Rabbani F, Tsai H, Bastar A, Fair WR: Effect of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and its prognostic significance. J Urol 1999;162:753-757.
27.
Al-Hussain TO, Epstein JI: Initial high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with carcinoma on subsequent prostate needle biopsy: findings at radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 2011;35:1165-1167.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.