Background: Epstein criteria based on sextant biopsy are assumed to be valid for 12-core biopsies. However, very scarce information is present in the current literature to support this view. Objectives: To investigate the validity of Epstein criteria for clinically insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) in a cohort of the currently utilized 12-core prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) scheme in patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk PCa. Method: Pathological findings were separately evaluated in the areas matching the sextant biopsy (6-core paramedian) scheme and in all 12-core schemes. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the final pathology report of RP as true clinically significant PCa (sPCa) and insignificant PCa (insPCa) groups. Predictive factors (including Epstein criteria) and cutoff values for the presence of insPCa were separately evaluated for 6- and 12-core TRUS-Bx schemes. Then, different predictive models based on Epstein criteria with or without additional biopsy findings were created. Results: A total of 442 patients were evaluated. PSA density, biopsy GS, percentage of tumor and number of positive cores, PNI, and HG-PIN were independent predictive factors for insPCa in both TRUS-Bx schemes. For the 12-core scheme, the best cutoff values of tumor percentage and number of positive cores were found to be ≤50% (OR: 3.662) and 1.5 cores (OR: 2.194), respectively. The best predictive model was found to be that which added 3 additional factors (PNI and HG-PIN absence and number of positive cores) to Epstein criteria (OR: 6.041). Conclusions: Using a cutoff value of “1” for the number of positive biopsy cores and absence of biopsy PNI and HG-PIN findings can be more useful for improving the prediction model of the Epstein criteria in the 12-core biopsy scheme.

1.
Siegel
RL
,
Miller
KD
,
Jemal
A
.
Cancer statistics, 2016
.
CA Cancer J Clin
.
2019
;
66
(
1
):
7
30
. .
2.
Mottet
N
,
Cornford
P
,
van den Bergh
RCN
,
Briers
E
,
De Santis
M
,
Fanti
S
,
EAU guideline on prostate cancer
.
Uroweb
.
2020
. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/.
3.
Tinay
I
,
Aslan
G
,
Kural
AR
,
Özen
H
,
Akdoğan
B
,
Yıldırım
A
,
Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from a contemporary Turkish patient cohort
.
Urol Int
.
2018
;
100
(
1
):
43
9
. .
4.
Ongun
S
,
Celik
S
,
Gül-Niflioglu
G
,
Aslan
G
,
Tuna
B
,
Mungan
U
,
Are active surveillance criteria sufficient for predicting advanced stage prostate cancer patients?
Actas Urol Esp
.
2014
;
38
(
8
):
499
505
. .
5.
Stamey
TA
,
Freiha
FS
,
McNeal
JE
,
Redwine
EA
,
Whittemore
AS
,
Schmid
HP
.
Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer
.
Cancer
.
1993
;
71
(
3 Suppl
):
933
8
. .
6.
Epstein
JI
,
Walsh
PC
,
Carmichael
M
,
Brendler
CB
.
Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumour extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer
.
JAMA
.
1994
;
271
:
368
74
.
7.
Oon
SF
,
Watson
RW
,
O’Leary
JJ
,
Fitzpatrick
JM
.
Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer
.
BJU Int
.
2011
;
108
(
4
):
518
25
. .
8.
Draisma
G
,
Boer
R
,
Otto
SJ
,
van der Cruijsen
IW
,
Damhuis
RA
,
Schröder
FH
,
Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2003
;
95
(
12
):
868
78
. .
9.
Cooperberg
MR
,
Lubeck
DP
,
Mehta
SS
,
Carroll
PR
;
CaPSURE
.
Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE)
.
J Urol
.
2003
;
170
(
6 Pt 2
):
S21
7
. .
10.
Carter
HB
,
Sauvageot
J
,
Walsh
PC
,
Epstein
JI
.
Prospective evaluation of men with stage T1C adenocarcinoma of the prostate
.
J Urol
.
1997
;
157
(
6
):
2206
9
. .
11.
Frankcombe
DE
,
Li
J
,
Cohen
RJ
.
Redefining the concept of clinically insignificant prostate cancer
.
Urology
.
2020
;
136
:
176
9
. .
12.
Warlick
CA
,
Allaf
ME
,
Carter
HB
.
Expectant treatment with curative intent in the prostate-specific antigen era: triggers for definitive therapy
.
Urol Oncol
.
2006
;
24
(
1
):
51
7
. .
13.
Bastian
PJ
,
Mangold
LA
,
Epstein
JI
,
Partin
AW
.
Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis
.
Cancer
.
2004
;
101
(
9
):
2001
5
. .
14.
Kundu
SD
,
Roehl
KA
,
Yu
X
,
Antenor
JA
,
Suarez
BK
,
Catalona
WJ
.
Prostate specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness
.
J Urol
.
2007
;
177
(
2
):
505
9
. .
15.
Van den Bergh
RC
,
Roemeling
S
,
Roobol
MJ
,
Aus
G
,
Hugosson
J
,
Rannikko
AS
,
Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly
.
Eur Urol
.
2009
;
55
(
1
):
1
8
. .
16.
Carter
HB
,
Kettermann
A
,
Warlick
C
,
Metter
EJ
,
Landis
P
,
Walsh
PC
,
Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience
.
J Urol
.
2007
;
178
(
6
):
2359
5
. .
17.
Komisarenko
M
,
Martin
LJ
,
Finelli
A
.
Active surveillance review: contemporary selection criteria, follow-up, compliance and outcomes
.
Transl Androl Urol
.
2018
;
7
(
2
):
243
55
. .
18.
Dall’Era
MA
,
Cooperberg
MR
,
Chan
JM
,
Davies
BJ
,
Albertsen
PC
,
Klotz
LH
,
Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature
.
Cancer
.
2018
;
112
:
1650
9
.
19.
van As
NJ
,
Norman
AR
,
Thomas
K
,
Khoo
VS
,
Thompson
A
,
Huddart
RA
,
Predicting the probability of deferred radical treatment for localised prostate cancer managed by active surveillance
.
Eur Urol
.
2008
;
54
(
6
):
1297
305
. .
20.
Matoso
A
,
Epstein
JI
.
Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings
.
Histopathology
.
2019
;
74
(
1
):
135
45
. .
21.
DeLancey
JO
,
Wood
DP
 Jr
,
He
C
,
Montgomery
JS
,
Weizer
AZ
,
Miller
DC
,
Evidence of perineural invasion on prostate biopsy specimen and survival after radical prostatectomy
.
Urology
.
2013
;
81
(
2
):
354
7
. .
22.
Gutiérrez
C
,
Terrasa
F
,
Briones
G
,
Conde
G
,
Fuentes
I
,
Hidalgo
F
,
[Prognostic role of perineural invasion in prostate biopsy]
.
Actas Urol Esp
.
2011
;
35
(
6
):
347
53
. .
23.
Miller
JS
,
Chen
Y
,
Ye
H
,
Robinson
BD
,
Brimo
F
,
Epstein
JI
.
Extraprostatic extension of prostatic adenocarcinoma on needle core biopsy: report of 72 cases with clinical follow-up
.
BJU Int
.
2010
;
106
(
3
):
330
3
. .
24.
Celik
S
,
Bozkurt
O
,
Demir
O
,
Gurboga
O
,
Tuna
B
,
Yorukoglu
K
,
Effects of perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy on tumor grade and biochemical recurrence rates after radical prostatectomy
.
Kaohsiung J Med Sci
.
2018
;
34
(
7
):
385
90
. .
25.
Bismar
TA
,
Lewis
JS
 Jr
,
Vollmer
RT
,
Humphrey
PA
.
Multiple measures of carcinoma extent versus perineural invasion in prostate needle biopsy tissue in prediction of pathologic stage in a screening population
.
Am J Surg Pathol
.
2003
;
27
(
4
):
432
40
. .
26.
Harnden
P
,
Shelley
MD
,
Clements
H
,
Coles
B
,
Tyndale-Biscoe
RS
,
Naylor
B
,
The prognostic significance of perineural invasion in prostatic cancer biopsies: a systematic review
.
Cancer
.
2007
;
109
(
1
):
13
24
. .
27.
Al-Hussain
T
,
Carter
HB
,
Epstein
JI
.
Significance of prostate adenocarcinoma perineural invasion on biopsy in patients who are otherwise candidates for active surveillance
.
J Urol
.
2011
;
186
(
2
):
470
3
. .
28.
Trpkov
C
,
Yilmaz
A
,
Trpkov
K
.
Perineural invasion in prostate cancer patients who are potential candidates for active surveillance: validation study
.
Urology
.
2014
;
84
(
1
):
149
52
. .
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.