72 research outputs found

    Evalutating radical prostatectomy speciments: therapeutic and prognostic importance

    No full text

    Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and the origins of prostatic carcinoma.

    No full text
    The participants agreed that high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia was the most likely precursor of prostate cancer. Consensus was reached regarding grading, suggesting that PIN be classified as low grade and high grade, noting that high grade PIN is the clinically significant end of the morphologic continuum. Grade 1 PIN is now considered low grade, and grades 2 and 3 are considered high grade. All participants agreed that urologists should be informed when high grade PIN is identified in isolation in tissue specimens, but consensus was not reached regarding the value of reporting low grade PIN. No therapy was recommended for patients with high grade PIN, although repeat biopsy and follow-up is of value. No consensus was reached regarding the biologic potential of the lesion known as atypical adenomatous hyperplasia. Further investigation is needed to determine the diagnostic utility of this finding in prostatic specimens

    Villous adenoma of the urinary tract: a report of 23 cases, including 8 with coexistent adenocarcinoma

    No full text

    The Significance of Atypical Adenomatous Hyperplasia and Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia For the Development of Prostate Carcinoma - An Update.

    No full text
    The term prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) is an accepted diagnosis in pathology of the prostate. The diagnostic difference between atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH) and adenosis is still under debate. A number of questions remain about the significance of grading of AAH and PIN, the biology of AAH and PIN as precursors of carcinoma, the possibility of treatment of AAH and PIN and whether AAH- and PIN-associated cancers differ from non-associated carcinoma. This paper reviews the results and discussions at the First International Consultation Meeting on Atypical Adenomatous Hyperplasia and Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia and the Origins of the Prostatic Carcinomas. AAH is an architectural atypia of the prostate. The histological and cytological features of AAH are intermediate between BPH and low-grade carcinoma of the prostate. Cell kinetic findings show no distinct neoplastic pattern. AAH may be a precursor of transition zone carcinoma but the findings to date are inconclusive. Follow up studies should address whether the association of AAH and carcinoma is incidental or whether transition occurs between AAH and carcinoma. In contrast, PIN is an accepted preneoplastic lesion and the most likely precursor of the dorso-peripheral zone carcinoma. The diagnosis of high-grade PIN is clinically important, because high-grade PIN is associated with carcinoma in a high percentage of patients (38-100%). AAH- and PIN-associated cancers may not differ from other prostatic cancers. At present treatment for AAH and PIN without carcinoma is not indicated, but high-grade PIN warrants surveillance and follow up of the patient to identify a possible coexisting cancer. It must be stressed that AAH and PIN are multifocal lesions and both are age-associated

    Diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: Prostate Working Group/consensus report

    No full text

    Prostate cancer outcome - Epidemiology and biostatistics.

    No full text
    Substantial gaps exist in our ability to accurately predict prognosis, and these gaps limit our understanding of the complex mechanisms that contribute to the greatest cancer epidemic of our time, prostate cancer. This review addresses contemporary epidemiologic and biostatistical issues in prostate cancer. It covers the science of outcome prediction and biomarker evaluation, recognition of the need to combine biomarkers to improve the accuracy of our outcome estimates and an analysis of current outcome assessment methods, including the TNM staging system and multivariate regression models. The simplicity and intuitive ease of the current TNM staging system must be balanced against its serious limitations in predictive accuracy and its loss of clinical utility. Statistical regression methods are required as we move to the new era of personalized medicine. We must implement statistical approaches that integrate the new molecular biomarkers with existing prognostic biomarkers to accurately predict which patients require treatment and to determine the optimal therapy
    corecore