Staging of prostate cancer
- 23 December 2011
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in Histopathology
- Vol. 60 (1), 87-117
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2011.04025.x
Abstract
Cheng L, Montironi R, Bostwick D G, Lopez‐Beltran A & Berney D M (2012) Histopathology 60, 87–117 Staging of prostate cancer Prostatic carcinoma (PCa) is a significant cause of cancer morbidity and mortality worldwide. Accurate staging is critical for prognosis assessment and treatment planning for PCa. Despite the large volume of clinical activity and research, the challenge to define the most appropriate and clinically relevant staging system remains. The pathologically complex and uncertain clinical course of prostate cancer further complicates the design of staging classification and a substaging system suitable for individualized care. This review will focus on recent progress and controversial issues related to prostate cancer staging. The 2010 revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC/UICC) tumour, node and metastasis (TNM) system is the most widely used staging system at this time. Despite general acceptance of the system as a whole, there is controversy and uncertainty about its application, particularly for T2 subclassification. The three‐tiered T2 classification system for organ‐confined prostate cancer is superfluous, considering the biology and anatomy of PCa. A tumour size‐based substaging system may be considered in the future TNM subclassification of pT2 cancer. Lymph node status is one of the most important prognostic factors for prostate cancer. Nevertheless, clinical outcomes in patients with positive lymph nodes are variable. Identification of patients at the greatest risk of systemic progression helps in the selection of appropriate therapy. The data suggest that the inherent aggressiveness of metastatic prostate cancer is closely linked to the tumour volume of lymph node metastasis. We recommend that a future TNM staging system should consider subclassification of node‐positive cancer on the basis of nodal cancer volume, using the diameter of the largest nodal metastasis and/or the number of positive nodes.Keywords
This publication has 132 references indexed in Scilit:
- Tumor Focality Does Not Predict Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy in Men With Clinically Localized Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, 2011
- Combination of Adjuvant Hormonal and Radiation Therapy Significantly Prolongs Survival of Patients With pT2–4 pN+ Prostate Cancer: Results of a Matched AnalysisEuropean Urology, 2011
- EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Clinically Localised DiseaseEuropean Urology, 2011
- Predicting Biochemical Recurrence-Free Survival for Patients With Positive Pelvic Lymph Nodes at Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, 2010
- Microscopic bladder neck involvement by prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens is not a significant independent prognostic factorLaboratory Investigation, 2009
- Survival in surgically treated, nodal positive prostate cancer patients is predicted by histopathological characteristics of the primary tumor and its lymph node metastasesThe Prostate, 2008
- Significance of micrometastases in prostate cancerSurgical Oncology, 2008
- Comprehensive Prospective Comparative Analysis of Outcomes Between Open and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Conducted in 2003 to 2005Journal of Urology, 2008
- Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection for Prostate Cancer: Experience With More Than 1,000 PatientsJournal of Urology, 2007
- Comparative assessment of the 1992 and 2002 pathologic T3 substages for the prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomyCancer, 2006