Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation of Peripheral Vein Tumour Marker Levels, Internal Iliac Vein Tumour Marker Levels and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens in Patients with Prostate Cancer and Borderline High Prostate-Specific Antigen: A Pilot Study

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To correlate prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free to total PSA percentage (fPSA%) and prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) levels from peripheral and pelvic venous samples with prostatectomy specimens in patients with prostate adenocarcinoma and borderline elevation of PSA.

Materials and Methods

In this prospective institutional review board approved study, 7 patients with biopsy proven prostate cancer had a venous sampling procedure prior to prostatectomy (mean 3.2 days, range 1–7). Venous samples were taken from a peripheral vein (PVS), the right internal iliac vein, a deep right internal iliac vein branch, left internal iliac vein and a deep left internal iliac vein branch. Venous sampling results were compared to tumour volume, laterality, stage and grade in prostatectomy surgical specimens.

Results

Mean PVS PSA was 4.29, range 2.3–6 ng/ml. PSA and PAP values in PVS did not differ significantly from internal iliac or deep internal iliac vein samples (p > 0.05). fPSA% was significantly higher in internal iliac (p = 0.004) and deep internal iliac (p = 0.003) vein samples compared to PVS. One of 7 patients had unilateral tumour only. This patient, with left–sided tumour, had a fPSA% of 6, 6, 6, 14 and 12 in his peripheral, right internal iliac, deep right internal iliac branch, left internal iliac and deep left internal iliac branch samples respectively. There were no adverse events.

Conclusion

fPSA%, unlike total PSA or PAP, is significantly higher in pelvic vein compared to peripheral vein samples when prostate cancer is present. Larger studies including patients with higher PSA values are warranted to further investigate this counterintuitive finding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(2):71–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carrol PR. Early stage prostate cancer-do we have a problem with over-detection, overtreatment or both? J Urol. 2005;173(4):1061–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mouraviev V, Mayes JM, Madden JF, Sun L, Polascik TJ. Analysis of laterality and percentage of tumor involvement in 1386 prostatectomized specimens for selection of unilateral focal cryotherapy. Tech Cancer Res Treat. 2007;6(2):91–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Djavan B, Susani M, Bursa B, Basharkhah A, Simak R, Marberger M. Predictability and significance of multifocal cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen. Techn Urol. 1999;5(3):139–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Polascik TJ, Mayers JM, Sun L, Madden JF, Moul JW, Mouraviev V. Pathologic stage 2a and 2b prostate cancer in the recent prostate-specific antigen era: implications for unilateral ablative therapy. Prostate. 2008;68(13):1380–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Turpen R, Rosser CJ. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: revolution or evolution? BMC Urol. 2009;9:2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Polascik TJ, Mouraviev V. Focal therapy for prostate cancer is a reasonable treatment option in properly selected patients. Urology. 2009;74(4):726–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Carroll PR, Zelefsky MJ, Sartor O, Hricak H, for the International task force on prostate cancer and the focal lesion paradigm, et al. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a critical appraisal of rationale and modalities. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2260–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scardino PT, Abenhaim LL. Focal therapy for prostate cancer: analysis by an international panel. Urology. 2008;72(6 Suppl):S1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mendez MH, Joh DY, Gupta R, Polascik TJ. Current trends and new frontiers in focal therapy for localized prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(6):35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fitzpatrick JM. PSA measurement in the treatment of BPH. BJU Int. 2004;93(1 Suppl):2–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wendell-Smith C. Terminology of the prostate and related structures. Clin Anat. 2000;13(3):207–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, Brawer MK, Flanigan RC, Patel A, et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic diseases. JAMA. 1998;279(19):1542–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Djavan B, Remzi M, Zlotta AR, Ravery V, Hammerer P, Reissigl A, et al. Complexed prostate-specific antigen, complexed prostate-specific antigen density of total and transition zone, complexed/total prostate-specific antigen ratio, free-to-total prostate-specific antigen ratio, density of total and transition zone prostate-specific antigen: results of the prospective multicenter European trial. Urology. 2002;60(4 Suppl 1):4–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Puppo P. Repeated negative prostate biopsies with persistently elevated or rising PSA: a modern urologic dilemma. Eur Urol. 2007;52(3):639–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jones JS. Management of rising prostate-specific antigen following a negative biopsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20(3):198–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Trock BJ. Circulating biomarkers for discriminating indolent from aggressive disease in prostate cancer active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(3):293–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Whitesel JA, Donohue RE, Mani JH, Mohr S, Scanavino DJ, Augspurger RR, et al. Acid phosphatase: its influence on the management of carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1984;131(1):70–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(2):125–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Zappa M, Nelen V, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Pinsky PF, Parnes HL, Andriole G. Mortality and complications after prostate biopsy in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening (PLCO) trial. BJU Int. 2014;113(2):254–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Anastasiadis E, van der Meulen J, Emberton M. Hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: a database analysis in England. Int J Urol. 2015;22(2):181–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Carrol PR. Early stage prostate cancer-do we have a problem with over-detection, overtreatment or both? J Urol. 2005;173(4):1061–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ward JF, Pisters LL. Considerations for patient selection for focal therapy. Ther Adv Urol. 2013;5(6):330–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lau JH, Drake W, Matson M. The current role of venous sampling in the localization of endocrine disease. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;30(4):555–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Young W, Stanson A, Thompson G, et al. Role for adrenal venous sampling in primary aldosteronism. Surgery. 2004;136(6):1227–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ginsburg M, Christoforidis GA, Zivin SP, Obara P, Wroblewski K, Angelos P, et al. Adenoma localization for recurrent or persistent primary hyperparathyroidism using dynamic four-dimensional CT and venous sampling. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(1):79–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaltsas G, Mukherjee J, Kola B, Isidori AM, Hanson JA, Dacie JE, et al. Is ovarian and adrenal venous catheterization and sampling helpful in the investigation of hyperandrogenic women? Clin Endocrinol. 2003;59(1):34–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Agarwal MD, Trerotola SO. Combined adrenal and ovarian venous sampling to localize an androgen producing tumor. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33(6):1266–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lilja H. Biology of prostate-specific antigen. Urology. 2003;62(5 Suppl 1):27–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Greene KL, Albertsen PC, Babaian RJ, Carter HB, Gann PH, Han M, et al. Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update. J Urol. 2013;189(1 Suppl):2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Batson OV. The function of the vertebral veins and their role in the spread of metastases. Ann Surg. 1940;112(1):138–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Batson OV. The vertebral vein system: Caldwell Lecture, 1956. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1957;78(2):195–212.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Suzuki T, Kurokawa K, Jimbo H, Hayashi M, Sekihara T, Takahashi H, et al. The role of intraabdominal pressure in venous blood drainage from the prostate into the vertebral vein system. Jpn J Physiol. 1993;43(5):697–708.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Franks LM. The spread of prostatic carcinoma to the bones. J Pathol Bacteriol. 1953;66:91–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. McCormack RT, Rittenhouse HG, Finlay JA, Sokoloff RL, Wang TJ, Wolfert RL, et al. Molecular forms of prostate-specific antigen and the human kallikrein gene family: a new era. Urology. 1995;45(5):729–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, Brawer MK, Flanigan RC, Patel A, et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic diseases. JAMA. 1998;279(19):1542–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Richardson TD, Wojno KJ, Liang LW, Giacherio DA, England BG, Henricks WH, et al. Half-life determination of serum free prostate-specific antigen following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 1996;48(6A Suppl):40–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Turkbey B, Albert PS, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL. Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. AJR. 2009;192(6):1471–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1112–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Blomqvist L, Carlsson S, Gjertsson P, Heintz E, Hultcrantz M, Mejare I, et al. Limited evidence for the use of imaging to detect prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(9):1601–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):627–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ross AE, D’Amico AV, Freedland SJ. Which, when and why? Rational use of tissue-based molecular testing in localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015. doi:10.1038/pcan.2015.31.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Falzarano SM, Ferro M, Bollito E, Klein EA, Carrieri G, Magi-Galluzzi C. Novel biomarkers and genomic tests in prostate cancer: a critical analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2015;67(3):211–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Grant Support: Study supported with a seed Research Grant: F. Hoffmann- La Roche Ltd. (Roche Diagnostics). 15,000 US Dollar Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 1 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Cormac Farrelly, Scott O. Trerotola, Gregory J. Nadolski & Micah M. Watts

  2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Priti Lal

  3. University College Dublin School of Medicine & Medical Science, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Dublin, Ireland

    Catherine Mc. Gorrian

  4. Department of Urology and Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Thomas J. Guzzo

  5. Department of Radiology, Level 2 Whitty Wing, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Dublin, Ireland

    Cormac Farrelly

Authors
  1. Cormac Farrelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priti Lal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Scott O. Trerotola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gregory J. Nadolski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Micah M. Watts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Catherine Mc. Gorrian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Thomas J. Guzzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cormac Farrelly.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This study was funded by a 15,000 US Dollar seed research grant from Roche diagnostics: F. Hoffmann- La Roche Ltd. Author A declares no other potential conflict of interest. Authors Priti Lal, Micah M. Watts, Catherine Mc Gorrian and Thomas J. Guzzo declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Author Scott O. Trerotola declares grants from Vascular Pathways, personal fees from Bard Peripheral Vascular, personal fees from Orbimed, personal fees from Teleflex, personal fees from Cook, personal fees from WL Gore, personal fees from Lutonix and personal fees from Medcomp. These are all outside the submitted work, and there is no conflict of interest. Author Gregory J. Nadolski declares grants from Guerbet, LLC. This is outside the submitted work, and there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farrelly, C., Lal, P., Trerotola, S.O. et al. Correlation of Peripheral Vein Tumour Marker Levels, Internal Iliac Vein Tumour Marker Levels and Radical Prostatectomy Specimens in Patients with Prostate Cancer and Borderline High Prostate-Specific Antigen: A Pilot Study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 39, 724–731 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-016-1322-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-016-1322-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation