Objective: Angiogenesis is believed to play an important role in tumor progression and metastasis. The goal of this study was to investigate the clinical utility of vascular invasion in prostate cancer patients treated by radical prostatectomy as a predictor of PSA recurrence.Methods: Between 1993 and 1998, 241 patients underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution and had routine analysis of vascular and/or lymphatic invasion (V/LI). V/LI was correlated with preoperative parameters including digital rectal examination (DRE), Gleason score (GS) on biopsy and serum PSA, with the pathological findings and with biochemical recurrence. Results: V/LI incidence was 12.4% (30 of 241 patients). Of the 30 patients with V/LI, 28 (93%) had GS ≥7 (67%) had a pT3 disease and 7 had SV invasion (23%). V/LI was not associated with DRE and GS on prostate needle biopsy. However, V/LI was correlated with the worst pathological findings including pT3 disease, seminal invasion, positive surgical margins and GS on prostate specimen >= 7. Biochemical recurrence–free survival was 92.5% for the patients without V/LI as compared to 30.1% for patients with V/LI on prostate specimen examination (p = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative serum PSA, Stage and V/LI were independent predictors of PSA recurrence. Patients with pT2 disease without V/LI had a biochemical recurrence–free survival of 99 vs. 31% in patients with V/LI (p = 0.0001).Conclusion: This study demonstrated that V/LI is strongly associated with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. The routine analysis of V/LI should be considered as a routine evaluation of the radical prostatectomy specimen.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Microvascular invasion, Radical prostatectomy, Prostate–specific antigen, Recurrence
1.
Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, Pearson JD, Chan DW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC: The use of prostatic specific antigen, clinical stage and gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostatic cancer. J Urol 1993;150:110–114.
2.
Pound CR, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC: Prostate–specific antigen after anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy: Patterns of recurrence and cancer control. Urol Clin North Am 1997;24:395–406.
3.
Schellhammer PF: Radical prostatectomy: Patterns of local failure and survival in 67 patients. Urology 1988;31:191–197.
4.
Humphrey PA, Frazier Ha, Vollmer RT, Paulson DF: Stratification of pathologic features on radical prostatectomy specimens that are predictive of elevated initial postoperative serum prostate–specific antigen levels. Cancer 1993;71:1821–1827.
5.
Epstein JI, Partin AW, Sauvageot J, Walsh PC: Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy: A multivariate analysis of 721 patients with long–term follow–up. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:286–292.
6.
Poste G, Fidler IJ: The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis. Nature 1980;283:139–146.
7.
Clemente CG, Boracchi P, Andreola S, Del Vecchio M, Veronesi P, Rilke FO: Peritumoral lymphatic invasion in patients with node–negative mammary duct carcinoma. Cancer 1992; 69:1396–1403.
8.
Chodak GW, Haudenschild C, Gittes RF, Folkman J: Angiogenic activity as a marker of neoplastic and preneoplastic lesions of the human bladder. Ann Surg 1980;192:762–771.
9.
Sillman F, Boyce J, Fruchter R: The significance of atypical vessels and neovascularization in cervical neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;139:154–159.
10.
Blood CH, Zetter BR: Tumor interactions with the vasculature: Angiogenesis and tumor metastasis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995;119: 1050–1054.
11.
Bahnson RR, Dresner SM, Gooding W, Becich MJ: Incidence and prognostic significance of lymphatic and vascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 1989;15: 149–155.
12.
Salomao DR, Graham SD, Bostwick DG: Microvascular invasion in prostate cancer correlates with pathologic stage. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995;119:1050–1054.
13.
McNeal JE, Yemoto CE: Significance of demonstrable vascular space invasion for the progression of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:1351–1360.
14.
van den Ouden D, Kranse R, Hop WC, van der Kwast TH, Schroder FH: Microvascular invasion in prostate cancer: prognostic significance in patients treated by radical prostatectomy for clinically localized carcinoma. Urol Int 1998; 60:17–24.
15.
Henson DE, Hutter RV, Farrow G: Practice protocol for the examination of specimens removed from patients with carcinoma of the prostate gland A publication of the Cancer Committee, College of American Pathologists Task Force on the Examination of Specimens Removed From Patients With Prostate Cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994;118:779–783.
16.
Jewett HJ: The results of radical perineal prostatectomy. JAMA 1969;210:324–325.
17.
Liotta La: Tumor invasion and metastases – role of the extracellular matrix: Rhoads Memorial Award lecture. Cancer Res 1986; 46:1–7.
18.
Liotta LA, Tryggvason K, Garbisa S, Hart I, Foltz CM, Shafie S: Metastatic potential correlates with enyzmatic degradation of basement membrane collagen. Nature 1980;284:67–68.
19.
Montironi R, Diamanti L, Thompson D, Bartels PH: Analysis of the capillary architecture in the precursors of prostate cancer: recent findings and new concepts. Eur Urol 1996; 30:191–200.
20.
Oefelein MG, Kaul K, Herz B, Blum MD, Holland JM, Keeler TC, Cook WA, Ignatoff JM: Molecular detection of prostate epithelial cells from the surgical field and peripheral circulation during radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1996; 155:238–242.
21.
Liotta LA, Saidl MG, Kleinerman J: The significance of hematogenous tumor cell clumps in the metastatic process. Cancer Res 1976;36: 889–894.
22.
Yorukoglu K, Sagol O, Ozkara E, Mungan U, Kirkali Z: Comparison of microvascularization in diagnostic needle biopsies and radical prostatectomies in prostate carcinoma. Eur Urol 1999;35:109–112.
2000
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.