http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/11162/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/32008/ 2012-01-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND The prostate may often harbor a prostate cancer (PC) which will not cause morbidity if left untreated. Screening for PC leads to increased detection of these insignificant cancers. Objective of this study is to compare PC detected by PSA screening at subsequent screening rounds and treated by radical prostatectomy (RP) with PC incidentally found in cystoprostatectomy specimens. METHODS Radical prostatectomy specimens of 617 screen-detected PC were compared with 123 PC identified in cystoprostatectomy specimens. Surgical specimens were systematically examined and stage, grade, tumor volume were recorded. Next, we classified PC as clinically significant or insignificant (i.e., tumor volume <0.5 cm3, absence of Gleason pattern 4/5, organ confined). Pathological features of incidentally detected PC were compared with PC detected in subsequent screening rounds and with screen-detected T1c PC. RESULTS Screen-detected PC overall were more often multifocal, larger in volume, more advanced in tumor stage and of higher grade, while the frequency of insignificant PC was lower as compared to those in cystoprostatectomy specimens. This effect became more pronounced during subsequent screening rounds. Screen-detected T1c PC were also more often multifocal (73% vs. 37%) in average fivefold larger (0.85 cm3vs. 0.16 cm3), less often organ confined (81% vs. 94%), and less frequently clinically insignificant (33% vs. 81%). CONCLUSIONS: Screen-detected (T1c) PC treated with RP shows more aggressive features than incidentally found PC. This PSA screening-related selection seems to be mainly driven by tumor volume and-in later screening rounds-by the preferential treatment by prostatectomy of more aggressive PC. Copyright http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/27946/ 2010-05-01T00:00:00Z Background: The independent prognostic value of tumour volume in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens is controversial, and it remains a matter of debate whether pathologists should report a measure of tumour volume. In addition, tumour volume might be of value in substaging of pathologic tumour stage (pT2) prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To assess the prognostic value of PCa tumour volume. Design, setting, and participants: The cohort consisted of 344 participants in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam section, whose PCa was treated with RP. Mean time of follow-up was 96.2 mo. Measurements: Tumour volume was measured in totally embedded RP specimens with a morphometric, computer-assisted method and assessed as a continuous variable, as relative tumour volume (tumour volume divided by prostate volume), and in a binary fashion (≥0.5 ml or <0.5 ml). These variables were related to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, local recurrence, or distant metastasis and PCa-related mortality using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses. The analyses were repeated in the subgroup with pT2 tumours. Results and limitations: Tumour volume was related to tumour stage, Gleason score, seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), and surgical margin status. In univariate analyses, tumour volume and relative tumour volume were predictive for all outcome variables. In multivariable analyses, including age, tumour stage, Gleason score, SVI, and surgical margin status, neither tumour volume nor relative volume were independent predictors of progression or mortality. Tumour volume ≥0.5 ml was predictive for PSA recurrence and local and/or distant progression in univariate analyses but not in multivariable analyses. Tumour volume was not predictive for recurrence or mortality in univariate or multivariable analyses in the pT2 subgroup. Conclusions: Tumour volume did not add prognostic value to routinely assessed pathologic parameters. Therefore, there seems to be little reason to routinely measure tumour volume in RP specimens. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/20155/ 2010-01-01T00:00:00Z Tumor volume was measured in 344 totally embedded radical prostatectomy specimens of screen detected prostate cancer cases. In univariate analyses, tumor volume was predictive for biochemical and local progression, metastasis and mortality. In multivariable analyses, tumor volume did not add prognostic value to routinely assessed pathological parameters, like tumor stage, Gleason score, seminal vesicle invasion and surgical margin status. Therefore, there seems to be little reason to routinely measure tumor volume in RP specimens. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/8372/ 2003-01-01T00:00:00Z The reported detection rate of prostate cancer, lesions suspicious for cancer, and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) in needle biopsies is highly variable. In part, technical factors, including the quality of the biopsies, the tissue processing, and histopathological reporting, may account for these differences. It has been thought that standardisation of tissue processing might reduce the observed variations in detection rate. Consensus among the members of the pathology committee of the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) concerning the optimal methodology of tissue embedding resulting in guidelines for prostatic needle biopsy processing was reached. The adoption of an unequivocal and uniform way of reporting lesions encountered in prostatic needle biopsies is considered helpful for decision taking by the clinician. The definition of parameters for quality control of prostatic needle biopsy diagnostics will further facilitate clinical epidemiological multicentre studies of prostate cancer. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/31909/ 2002-05-08T00:00:00Z The studies in this thesis were aimed at the histopathologic characteristics of prostate cancer detected at screening of the general male population betvveen 55 and 75 years of age. They were intended to answer a number of questions, which were posed earlier in this chapter. I come back to these questions now, and will try to answer them briefly: http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/9579/ 2001-01-01T00:00:00Z No objective parameters have been found so far that can predict the biological behavior of early stages of prostatic cancer, which are encountered frequently nowadays due to surveillance and screening programs. We have applied comparative genomic hybridization to routinely processed, paraffin-embedded radical prostatectomy specimens derived from patients who participated in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. We defined a panel consisting of 36 early cancer specimens: 13 small (total tumor volume (Tv) < 0.5 ml) carcinomas and 23 intermediate (Tv between 0.5-1.0 ml) tumors. These samples were compared with a set of 16 locally advanced, large (Tv > 2.0 ml) tumor samples, not derived from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Chromosome arms that frequently (ie, > or = 15%) showed loss in the small tumors included 13q (31%), 6q (23%), and Y (15%), whereas frequent (ie, > or = 15%) gain was seen of 20q (15%). In the intermediate cancers, loss was detected of 8p (35%), 16q (30%), 5q (26%), Y (22%), 6q, and 18q (both 17%). No consistent gains were found in this group. In the large tumors, loss was seen of 13q (69%), 8p (50%), 5q, 6q (both 31%), and Y (15%). Gains were observed of 8q (37%), 3q (25%), 7p, 7q, 9q, and Xq (all 19%). Comparison of these early, localized tumors with large adenocarcinomas showed a significant increase in the number of aberrant chromosomes per case (Rs = 0.36, P = 0.009). The same was true for the number of lost or gained chromosomes per case (Rs = 0.27, P: = 0.05; Rs = 0.48, respectively; P < 0.001). Interestingly, chromosomal alterations that were found in previous studies to be potential biomarkers for tumor aggressiveness, ie, gain of 7pq and/or 8q, were already distinguished in the small and intermediate cancers. In conclusion, our data show that chromosomal losses, more specifically of 6q and 13q, are early events in prostatic tumorigenesis, whereas chromosomal gains, especially of 8q, appear to be late events in prostatic tumor development. Finally, early localized tumors, as detected by screening programs, harbor cancers with aggressive genetic characteristics. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/9698/ 2001-01-01T00:00:00Z BACKGROUND: The currently recommended frequency for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening tests for prostate cancer is 1 year, but the optimal screening interval is not known. Our goal was to determine if a longer interval would compromise the detection of curable prostate cancer. METHODS: A cohort of 4491 men aged 55-75 years, all participants in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of (population-based) Screening for Prostate Cancer, were invited to participate in an initial PSA screening. Men who received that screening were invited for a second screen 4 years later. Pathology findings from needle biopsy cores were compared for men in both rounds. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 4133 men were screened in the first round (the prevalence screen), and 2385 were screened in the second round. The median amount of cancer in needle biopsy sets was 7.0 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.4 mm to 8.6 mm) in the first round and 4.1 mm (95% CI = 2.6 mm to 5.6 mm) in the second round (P =.001). Thirty-six percent of the adenocarcinomas detected in the first round but only 16% of those detected in the second round had a Gleason score of 7 or higher (mean difference = 20% [95% CI = 10% to 30%]; P<.001). Whereas 25% of the adenocarcinomas detected in the first round had adverse prognostic features, only 6% of those detected in the second round did (mean difference = 19% [95% CI = 11% to 26%]; P<.001). Baseline PSA values were predictive for the amount of tumor in biopsies in men with cancer in the first round but not for that in the second round. CONCLUSION: Most large prostate cancers with high serum PSA levels were effectively detected in a prevalence screen. In this population, a screening interval of 4 years appears to be short enough to constrain the development of large tumors, although it is inconclusive whether this will result in a survival benefit.