Praxis Medica
Sign in
Issue image

More articles from Volume 49, Issue 3, 2020

The role of computerized tomographic angiography in the diagnosis of pathologically modified renal arteries

Anatomical variants of circle of Willis

Benefit of the first phase of the cardiac rehabilitation after cardiac surgery

Parents' knowledge about the effects of oral hygiene, proper nutrition and fluoride prophylaxis on oral health in early childhood

Antimicrobial treatment of Acinetobacter neuii invasive infections: A systematic review

Diagnostic, prognostic and predictive parameters in prostate cancer

Milica Mijović ,
Milica Mijović
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Vladica Nedeljković ,
Vladica Nedeljković
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Danica Vukićević ,
Danica Vukićević
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Nebojša Mitić Orcid logo ,
Nebojša Mitić
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Branislav Đerković ,
Branislav Đerković
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Julijana Rašić ,
Julijana Rašić
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar
Vesna Premović
Vesna Premović
View authors publications

Search this author on:

PubMed | Google Scholar

Published: 01.12.2019.

Volume 49, Issue 3 (2020)

pp. 43-49;

https://doi.org/10.5937/pramed2004043m

Abstract

Prostate cancer (CP) is the most common malignancy in men in America, while it is the second most common in Europe. It is responsible for about 10% of cancer deaths in the same population. It is clinically manifested in various forms, from slow-growing to aggressive forms with pronounced metastatic potential. Diagnosis is made by a well-defined algorithm, which begins with the determination of serum prostate specific antigen values and ends with prostate biopsy as the "gold standard". Pathohistological diagnostic criterias are based on architectural, cytoplasmic, nuclear and characteristics of intraluminal structures, as well as periacinar cleftings, which are deffined as helpfull diagnostic criteria of undoubted importance. Prognostic and predictive parameters are classified into three categories. Some of them are an integral part of routine pathohistologicat report, while others are considered as the diagnostic process progresses. Modern knowledge introduces biomarkers into the everyday practice of personalized medicine, especially when is necessary to treat prostate cancer patients.

References

1.
Adami HO, Kuper H, Andersson SO, Bergstrom R, Dillner J. Prostate cancer risk and serologic evidence of himan papilloma virus infection: a population-based case-control study. Vol. 12. 2003. p. 87–5.
2.
Manual AJCCCS, Edition S. 2010.
3.
Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, Epstein JI, Humphrey PA, Mikuz G, et al. Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Vol. 39, Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology. 2005. p. 20–33.
4.
Barth PJ, Weingärtner K, Köhler HH, Bittinger A. Assessment of the vascularization in prostatic carcinoma: A morphometric investigation. Vol. 27, Human Pathology. 1996. p. 1306–10.
5.
Bastacky SI, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Relationship Between Perineural Tumor Invasion on Needle Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Capsular Penetration in Clinical Stage B Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate. Vol. 17, The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 1993. p. 336–41.
6.
Berman-Booty LD, Knudsen KE. Models of neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Vol. 22, Endocrine-Related Cancer. 2015. p. R33–49.
7.
BETTENCOURT MC, BAUER JJ, SESTERHENN IA, CONNELLY RR, MOUL JW. CD34 IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL ASSESSMENT OF ANGIOGENESIS AS A PROGNOSTIC MARKER FOR PROSTATE CANCER RECURRENCE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY. Vol. 160, Journal of Urology. 1998. p. 459–65.
8.
Bonkhoff H. Neuroendocrine differentiation in human prostate cancer. Morphogenesis, proliferation and androgen receptor status. Vol. 12, Annals of Oncology. 2001. p. S141–4.
9.
Bono AV. The global state of prostate cancer: epidemiology and screening in the second millennium. Vol. 94, BJU International. 2004. p. 1–2.
10.
Bostwick DG, Wheeler TM, Blute M, Barrett DM, MacLennan GT, Sebo TJ, et al. Optimized microvessel density analysis improves prediction of cancer stage from prostate needle biopsies. Vol. 48, Urology. 1996. p. 47–57.
11.
Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond MEH, Amin MB, Cohen M, Crawford D, et al. Prognostic Factors in Prostate Cancer. Vol. 124, Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 2000. p. 995–1000.
12.
Brawley OW. Prostate carcinoma incidence and patient mortality. Vol. 80, Cancer. 1997. p. 1857–63.
13.
Büscheck F, Sulimankhil M, Melling N, Höflmayer D, Hube‐Magg C, Simon R, et al. Loss of cytoplasmic survivin expression is an independent predictor of poor prognosis in radically operated prostate cancer patients. Vol. 9, Cancer Medicine. 2020. p. 1409–18.
14.
Cerovic S, Brajuskovic G, Maletic-Vukotic V, Micic S. Neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer. Vol. 61, Vojnosanitetski pregled. 2004. p. 513–8.
15.
Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci"> EL. What causes prostate cancer? A brief summary of the epidemiology. Vol. 8, Seminars in Cancer Biology. 1998. p. 263–73.
16.
Cook PJ, Doll R, Fellingham SA. A mathematical model for the age distribution of cancer in man. Vol. 4, International Journal of Cancer. 1969. p. 93–112.
17.
Sant’Agnese PA. Divergent neuroendocrine differentiation in prostatic carcinoma. Vol. 17. 2000. p. 149–61.
18.
Dvorak HF, Brown LF, Detmar M. Vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor, microvascular hyperpermeability and angiogenesis. Vol. 146. 1995. p. 1029–39.
19.
Egevad L, Granfors T, Karlberg L, Bergh A, Stattin P. Prognostic value of the Gleason score in prostate cancer. Vol. 89, BJU International. 2002. p. 538–42.
20.
Fanelli M, Locopo N, Gattuso D, Gasparini G. Assessment of Tumor Vascularization: Immunohistochemical and Non-Invasive Methods. Vol. 14, The International Journal of Biological Markers. 1999. p. 218–31.
21.
Folkman J. Clinical Applications of Research on Angiogenesis. Vol. 333, New England Journal of Medicine. 1995. p. 1757–63.
22.
Greene DR, Wheeler TM, Egawa S, Dunn JK, Scardino PT. A Comparison of the Morphological Features of Cancer Arising in the Transition Zone and in the Peripheral Zone of the Prostate. Vol. 146, Journal of Urology. 1991. p. 1069–76.
23.
H�ggstr�m S, Bergh A, Damber JE. Vascular endothelial growth factor content in metastasizing and nonmetastasizing dunning prostatic adenocarcinoma. Vol. 45, The Prostate. 2000. p. 42–50.
24.
Höflmayer D, Hamuda M, Schroeder C, Hube-Magg C, Simon R, Göbel C, et al. High RSF1 protein expression is an independent prognostic feature in prostate cancer. Vol. 59, Acta Oncologica. 2020. p. 268–73.
25.
Ingles SA, Ross RK, Yu MC, Haile RW, Irvine RA, La Pera G, et al. Association of Prostate Cancer Risk With Genetic Polymorphisms in Vitamin D Receptor and Androgen Receptor. Vol. 89, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1997. p. 166–70.
26.
Ingles SA, Coetzee GA, Ross RK, Henderson BE, Kolonel LN, Crocitto L, et al. Association of prostate cancer with vitamin D receptor haplotypes in African-Americans. Vol. 58. 1998. p. 1620–3.
27.
Institut za javno zdravlje Srbije “Dr Milan Jovanović Batut”: Incidencija i mortalitet od raka u Centralnoj Srbiji 2012. In 2014.
28.
Burns JA, Weiner AB, Catalona WJ, Li EV, Schaeffer EM, Hanauer SB, et al. Inflammatory Bowel Disease and the Risk of Prostate Cancer. Vol. 75, European Urology. 2019. p. 846–52.
29.
Klein EA, Li J, Milinovich A, Schold JD, Sharifi N, Kattan MW, et al. Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Men with Prostate Cancer Does Not Affect Risk of Infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vol. 205, Journal of Urology. 2021. p. 441–3.
30.
Kretschmer A, Wittekind C, Stief CG, Gratzke C. Das neuroendokrine Prostatakarzinom. Vol. 54, Der Urologe. 2015. p. 1779–83.
31.
LAU WK, BERGSTRALH EJ, BLUTE ML, SLEZAK JM, ZINCKE H. RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR PATHOLOGICAL GLEASON 8 OR GREATER PROSTATE CANCER: INFLUENCE OF CONCOMITANT PATHOLOGICAL VARIABLES. Vol. 167, Journal of Urology. 2002. p. 117–22.
32.
Mahadevan V, Hart IR. Metastasis and Angiogenesis. Vol. 29, Acta Oncologica. 1990. p. 97–103.
33.
Maru N, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Prognostic significance of the diameter of perineural invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens. Vol. 32, Human Pathology. 2001. p. 828–33.
34.
Marx A, Luebke AM, Clauditz TS, Steurer S, Fraune C, Hube-Magg C, et al. Upregulation of Phosphatase 1 Nuclear-Targeting Subunit (PNUTS) Is an Independent Predictor of Poor Prognosis in Prostate Cancer. Vol. 2020, Disease Markers. 2020. p. 1–10.
35.
Kardoust Parizi M, Iwata T, Kimura S, Janisch F, Abufaraj M, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Focal Neuroendocrine Differentiation of Conventional Prostate Adenocarcinoma as a Prognostic Factor after Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Vol. 20, International Journal of Molecular Sciences. p. 1374.
36.
MELNYK O, ZIMMERMAN M, KIM KJ, SHUMAN M. NEUTRALIZING ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR ANTIBODY INHIBITS FURTHER GROWTH OF ESTABLISHED PROSTATE CANCER AND METASTASES IN A PRE-CLINICAL MODEL. Vol. 161, Journal of Urology. 1999. p. 960–3.
37.
Mijović M, Vukićević D, Mitić N, Kneževic M, Đerković B. Periacinarne pukotine u adenokarcinomu prostate, prostaticnoj intraepitelnoj neoplaziji i benignoj hiperplaziji prostate. Vol. 38. 2010. p. 1–7.
38.
Mijovic M, Vukicevic D, Djerkovic B, Nedeljkovic V, Vitkovic L. Significance of periacinar cleftings as supporting criteria in diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score-a 7 (3+4) and Gleason score-a 7 (4+3) and their relationship with parameters of predictive value. Vol. 43, Praxis medica. 2014. p. 59–69.
39.
Mijovic M, Corac A, Smiljic S, Savic S, Mandic P, Vitkovic L, et al. Correlation of focal neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer with the parameters of predictive value. Vol. 76, Vojnosanitetski pregled. 2019. p. 1115–26.
40.
Mijovic M, Vukicevic D, Djerkovic B, Nedeljkovic V, Vitkovic L. Prognostic significance of Gleason score 7 (3+4) and Gleason score 7 (4+3) in prostatic adenocarcinoma in relation to clinical stage, androgen tissue status and degree of neuroendocrine differentiation. Vol. 43, Praxis medica. 2014. p. 1–12.
41.
Mijovic M, Vukicevic D, Djerkovic B, Savic S, Vitkovic L, Nedeljkovic V. Specificity and sensitivity of preoperative total serum prostate specific antigen in diagnosis most common histopathological change of prostate. Vol. 46, Praxis medica. 2017. p. 9–19.
42.
Institute NCR. High levels of two hormones in the blood raise prostate cancer risk. 2019.
43.
Parker C, Gillessen S, Heidenreich A, Horwich A. Cancer of the prostate: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Vol. 26, Annals of Oncology. 2015. p. v69–77.
44.
Platz EA. Racial Variation in Prostate Cancer Incidence and in Hormonal System Markers Among Male Health Professionals. Vol. 92, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2000. p. 2009–17.
45.
Punglia RS, D’Amico AV, Catalona WJ, Roehl KA, Kuntz KM. Impact of age, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and cancer on prostate‐specific antigen level. Vol. 106, Cancer. 2006. p. 1507–13.
46.
Xiang Q, Zhu Z, Luo L, Wang J, Liu Y, Deng Y, et al. The Correlation between PSCA Expression and Neuroendocrine Differentiation in Prostate Cancer. Vol. 2020, BioMed Research International. 2020. p. 1–9.
47.
ROGATSCH H, HITTMAIR A, REISSIGL A, MIKUZ G, FEICHTINGER H. MICROVESSEL DENSITY IN CORE BIOPSIES OF PROSTATIC ADENOCARCINOMA: A STAGE PREDICTOR? Vol. 182, The Journal of Pathology. 1997. p. 205–10.
48.
Ross RK, Pike MC, Coetzee GA, Reichardt JK, Yu MC, Feigelson H, et al. Androgen metabolism and prostate cancer: establishing a model of genetic susceptibility. Vol. 58. 1998. p. 4497–504.
49.
Rubin MA, Buyyounouski M, Bagiella E, Sharir S, Neugut A, Benson M, et al. Microvessel density in prostate cancer: lack of correlation with tumor grade, pathologic stage, and clinical outcome. Vol. 53, Urology. 1999. p. 542–7.
50.
Shibata A, Whittemore AS. Genetic predisposition to prostate cancer: Possible explanations for ethnic differences in risk. Vol. 32, The Prostate. 1997. p. 65–72.
51.
Smith-McCune K, Zhu YH, Hanahan D, Arbeit J. Cross-species Comparison of Angiogenesis during the Premalignant Stages of Squamous Carcinogenesis in the Human Cervix and K14-HPV16 Transgenic Mice. Vol. 57. 1997. p. 1294–300.
52.
STAMEY TA, JOHNSTONE IM, McNEAL JE, LU AY, YEMOTO CM. PREOPERATIVE SERUM PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN LEVELS BETWEEN 2 AND 22 NG./ML. CORRELATE POORLY WITH POST-RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY CANCER MORPHOLOGY: PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN CURE RATES APPEAR CONSTANT BETWEEN 2 AND 9 NG./ML. Vol. 167, Journal of Urology. 2002. p. 103–11.
53.
Tamas EF, Epstein JI. Prognostic Significance of Paneth Cell-like Neuroendocrine Differentiation in Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate. Vol. 30, The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2006. p. 980–5.
54.
Tangen CM, Faulkner JR, Crawford ED, Thompson IM, Hirano D, Eisenberger M, et al. Ten-Year Survival in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Vol. 2, Clinical Prostate Cancer. 2003. p. 41–5.
55.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines: Prostate cancer early detection. 2018.
56.
Wang W, Epstein JI. Small Cell Carcinoma of the Prostate. Vol. 32, American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2008. p. 65–71.
57.
Wikström P, Lissbrant IF, Stattin P, Egevad L, Bergh A. Endoglin (CD105) is expressed on immature blood vessels and is a marker for survival in prostate cancer. Vol. 51, The Prostate. 2002. p. 268–75.
58.
Yamada Y, Nakamura K, Aoki S, Taki T, Naruse K, Matsubara H, et al. An immunohistochemical study of chromogranin A and human epidermal growth factor‐2 expression using initial prostate biopsy specimens from patients with bone metastatic prostate cancer. Vol. 99, BJU International. 2007. p. 189–95.
59.
Li Y, Chen HQ, Chen MF, Liu HZ, Dai YQ, Lv H, et al. Neuroendocrine differentiation is involved in chemoresistance induced by EGF in prostate cancer cells. Vol. 84, Life Sciences. 2009. p. 882–7.

Citation

Copyright

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles

Indexed by
DOAJ
Google Scholar
ERIHPLUS
MIAR I
Crossref