Objectives. To evaluate whether the incidence of atrophy reported on sextant biopsies is associated with subsequent prostate cancer detection and to obtain a more thorough analysis of the different categories and extent of atrophy, we performed a review of benign biopsy cores. Methods. In the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, 4117 and 1840 men underwent sextant biopsy in the first and second screening round (4-year interval), respectively. Sextant biopsy was prompted by elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. For review, randomly taken benign sextant biopsies (n = 202) with a follow-up of at least 8 years were chosen. Results. Before review, atrophy was reported in the biopsies of 11.4% and 8.7% of the first and second round, respectively. The prostate cancer incidence during 8 years of follow-up after an initial diagnosis of atrophy was 10.4%, which was not significantly different than the 12.3% of cancers detected after a benign diagnosis without reference to atrophy. After review, the incidence of simple atrophy, post-atrophic hyperplasia, and sclerotic atrophy in sextant biopsies was 91%, 47%, and 9%, respectively. Extensive atrophy was observed in 5% of biopsies. Only 2 men (4.7%) in the reviewed group had a subsequent diagnosis of prostate cancer in the 8 years of follow-up. Additionally, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia was diagnosed in 3 men (7.0%) in the second screening round. Conclusions. Atrophy, especially its simple form, is a very common lesion in prostate biopsy cores (94%). Atrophy in an asymptomatic population undergoing screening was not associated with a greater prostate cancer or prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia incidence during subsequent screening rounds.

doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.046, hdl.handle.net/1765/57223
Department of Pathology

Postma, R., Schröder, F., & van der Kwast, T. (2005). Atrophy in prostate needle biopsy cores and its relationship to prostate cancer incidence in screened men. Urology (Vol. 65, pp. 745–749). doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.046