Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contemporary Prostate Cancer Staging 

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Genitourinary Pathology

  • 1688 Accesses

Abstract

Stage remains one of the most important prognosticators of prostate cancer, involving determination of the anatomic extent or spread of disease at the time of diagnosis based on clinical and pathologic criteria. Clinical staging is based on parameters available to the urologist or referring physician before the first definitive treatment. Pathologic stage obtained at radical prostatectomy is an important factor not only in determining the most appropriate choice of therapy for individual patients, but also in predicting the likelihood of local and distant disease recurrence. Surgical margin status is also a known prognostic parameter for postoperative biochemical recurrence and prostate cancer disease progression, and needs to be reported in radical prostatectomy. Another parameter to be reported is lymphovascular invasion, which has been significantly associated with regional lymph node metastases. The spread of prostate cancer to regional lymph nodes is a means of tumor dissemination with important impact on management and prognosis. Distant metastases of prostate cancer may occur, predominantly to bone. Finally, advanced imaging techniques are becoming a powerful tool to detect and stage prostate cancer.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Edge SBBD, Comptom CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC cancer staging. 7th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2010. p. 525e38.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Falzarano SM, Magi-Galluzzi C. Staging prostate cancer and its relationship to prognosis. Diagn Histopathol. 2010;16:432–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Reese AC, Sadetsky N, Carroll PR, Cooperberg MR. Inaccuracies in assignment of clinical stage for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(2):283–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eisenberg ML, Cowan JE, Davies BJ, Carroll PR, Shinohara K. The importance of tumor palpability and transrectal ultrasonographic appearance in the contemporary clinical staging of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2011;29(2):171–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, Kattan MW. An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer. 2008;113(11):3075–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Armatys SA, Koch MO, Bihrle R, Gardner TA, Cheng L. Is it necessary to separate clinical stage T1c from T2 prostate adenocarcinoma? BJU Int. 2005;96(6):777–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Billis A, Magna LA, Watanabe IC, Costa MV, Telles GH, Ferreira U. Are prostate carcinoma clinical stages T1c and T2 similar? Int Braz J Urol. 2006;32(2):165–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Reese AC, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Minimal impact of clinical stage on prostate cancer prognosis among contemporary patients with clinically localized disease. J Urol. 2010;184(1):114–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):6–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Berney DM, Wheeler TM, Grignon DJ, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, Humphrey PA, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 4: seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):39–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Magi-Galluzzi C, Evans AJ, Delahunt B, Epstein JI, Griffiths DF, van der Kwast TH, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 3: extraprostatic extension, lymphovascular invasion and locally advanced disease. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):26–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan PH, Cheng L, Srigley JR, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, van der Kwast TH, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 5: surgical margins. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):48–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(1):16–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kordan Y, Chang SS, Salem S, Cookson MS, Clark PE, Davis R, et al. Pathological stage T2 subgroups to predict biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2291–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Kok DE, Kiemeney LA, Hulsbergen-Van De Kaa CA. The prognostic role of the pathological T2 subclassification for prostate cancer in the 2002 Tumour-Nodes-Metastasis staging system. BJU Int. 2008;102(4):438–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Falzarano S, Streator Smith K, Magi-Galluzzi C. Extraprostatic extension on prostate needle biopsy: uncommon finding with important implications. United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology; Baltimore, MD: Mod Pathol; 2013:208A.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rodriguez-Covarrubias F, Larre S, Dahan M, De La Taille A, Allory Y, Yiou R, et al. Invasion of bladder neck after radical prostatectomy: one definition for different outcomes. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2008;11(3):294–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhou M, Reuther AM, Levin HS, Falzarano SM, Kodjoe E, Myles J, et al. Microscopic bladder neck involvement by prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy specimens is not a significant independent prognostic factor. Mod Pathol. 2009;22(3):385–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Watts KE, Magi-Galluzzi C. Targeted seminal vesicles biopsies: incidence and clinicopathological finding. United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology; Baltimore, MD: Mod Pathol; 2013:257A.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bowrey DJ, Otter MI, Billings PJ. Rectal infiltration by prostatic adenocarcinoma: report on six patients and review of the literature. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2003;85(6):382–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Emerson RE, Koch MO, Daggy JK, Cheng L. Closest distance between tumor and resection margin in radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prognostic significance. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(2):225–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, Humphrey PA, Mikuz G, et al. Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2005(216):34–63.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Babaian RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar VA, Johnston DA. Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2001;91(8):1414–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Epstein JI, Srigley J, Grignon D, Humphrey P. Recommendations for the reporting of prostate carcinoma: association of directors of anatomic and surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129(1):24–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ito K, Nakashima J, Mukai M, Asakura H, Ohigashi T, Saito S, et al. Prognostic implication of microvascular invasion in biochemical failure in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2003;70(4):297–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. May M, Kaufmann O, Hammermann F, Loy V, Siegsmund M. Prognostic impact of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int. 2007;99(3):539–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rove KO, Crawford ED. Metastatic cancer in solid tumors and clinical outcome: skeletal-related events. Oncology (Williston Park). 2009;23(14 Suppl 5): 21–7.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bouchelouche K, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Capala J. Imaging prostate cancer: an update on positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Urol Rep. 2010;11(3):180–90.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Turkbey B, Bernardo M, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. MRI of localized prostate cancer: coming of age in the PSA era. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012;18(1):34–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bloch BN, Genega EM, Costa DN, Pedrosa I, Smith MP, Kressel HY, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with high spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced 3-T MRI. Euro Radiol. 2012;22(10):2201–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Turkbey B, Mena E, Aras O, Garvey B, Grant K, Choyke PL. Functional and molecular imaging: applications for diagnosis and staging of localised prostate cancer. Clin Oncol. 2013;25(8):451–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Asst. Prof. Cristina Magi-Galluzzi

  2. Cleveland Clinic, Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Sara M. Falzarano MD

  3. Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Christopher G. Przybycin

Authors
  1. Asst. Prof. Cristina Magi-Galluzzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sara M. Falzarano MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher G. Przybycin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Magi-Galluzzi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Cristina Magi-Galluzzi

  2. Department of Pathology, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Christopher G. Przybycin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Magi-Galluzzi, C., Falzarano, S., Przybycin, C. (2015). Contemporary Prostate Cancer Staging . In: Magi-Galluzzi, C., Przybycin, C. (eds) Genitourinary Pathology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2044-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2044-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2043-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2044-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation