Showing posts with label EPE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPE. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2020

Diagnosing Extraprostatic Extension (EPE)

Extraprostatic Extension (EPE) or "Stage T3a" means the cancer has eaten through the edge of the prostate and is penetrating into the tissue outside. It can be difficult to diagnose before a prostatectomy. Sometimes, it can be felt using a digital rectal exam (DRE) as a bulge or irregular texture, but that is an exception rather than the rule. More often, it is seen on an mpMRI or ultrasound image.

It is important because its presence is a strong predictor of recurrence after treatment. It is one of three risk factors used in the NCCN definition of "high-risk" prostate cancer. That definition is based on the AJCC staging criteria (see this link), which means that it is strictly only based on DRE. DREs almost always fail to detect EPE. If the bulge is so big that one can feel it through the rectum, it adds significantly to the risk. But how much does it add to the predicted risk if it can only be seen on a powerful MRI?

Reisaeter et al. evaluated the Mehralivand EPE Grading System and found it was somewhat more sensitive in clinical practice as the commonly used Likert EPE scoring system. (The interested patient may also wish to read this editorial by Peter Choyke)

The Likert score looks at certain imaging abnormalities (tumor contact length with the prostate capsule, irregularity, bulging, gross extension, and loss of rectoprostatic angle) and summarizes them using five categories:
  • 1 = criterion not present
  • 2 = probably not present
  • 3 = uncertain if present
  • 4 = probably present
  • 5 = definitely present.

The Mehralivand System uses three grades:
  • Grade 1 refers to tumors with a contact length of 1.5 cm or greater or contour bulge or irregularity. 
  • Grade 2 refers to tumors with a contact length of 1.5 cm or greater and contour bulge or irregularity, 
  • Grade 3 refers to gross visible extension beyond the prostate.
Both systems require very well-trained radiologists - interobserver agreement is only fair.

Mehralivand compared the predictions of the EPE detection system to what was actually detected after the same patients had prostatectomies. Even when the Mehralivand System assigned Grade 3 to a suspected EPE, a third of them were false (positive predictive value (PPV) = 66%). False positives may be caused by inflammation, tumor scar tissue, or biopsy scar tissue. Contact with the capsule may be wholly inside, and a bulge may be wholly contained within the capsule. 

What's worse, the Mehralivand System incorrectly predicted there would be no EPE in 18% of cases where EPE was eventually found (negative predictive value (NPV) = 82%). False negatives are caused by tumors below the size where MRI can detect them. 
  • The PPV was 41%, 48%, and 66% for Grade 1, 2, and 3, respectively
  • The NPV was 90%, 88% and 82% for Grade 1, 2, and 3, respectively
Since DREs are so bad at detecting EPE, and MRIs are little better, what can be done to better predict EPE, and is better prediction necessary?

Is better prediction always necessary?

It has been found that focal EPE (extensions of less than 3 mm) and EPE comprising low Gleason score tumor tissue are not predictive of treatment failure. In this Johns Hopkins study, 10 year biochemical recurrence-free survival was 76% among men with focal EPE (post-prostatectomy) and 59% among those with more extensive EPE. A surgeon discovering a focal EPE may simply cut wider to get it all. GS 6 tumors have low metastatic potential (see this link). However, a patient who learns in advance that the surgeon will "cut wide" thereby increasing his risk of incontinence or impotence may opt instead for radiotherapy.

mpMRI-targeted transprostatic biopsy

It may be possible to detect clinically significant EPE by detecting suspicious sites using an mpMRI and following up with a real-time ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy. Some pathologists have argued that needle-biopsy cores that show close proximity to the prostate marginadmixture with skeletal muscle at the apex, or admixture with adipose or other peri-prostatic soft tissue predict for EPE. This suggests that clinically significant EPE may be diagnosed with transprostatic needle-biopsy cores. This is an unusual procedure. Of course, as with any needle biopsy, it may miss the site, and several cores from the suspicious site should be taken. A periprostatic nerve block is required (which imho should be required on all needle biopsies) to prevent any additional pain. There is also some risk of extra bleeding if a blood vessel is nicked. It is worth discussing with the biopsy urologist. It is also important that the designated cores be evaluated by an experienced pathologist like Jonathan Epstein at Johns Hopkins.

(update June 2022) Moroianu et al. reported a "deep learning" algorithm that is better at detecting EPE from an mpMRI than a radiologist.
  • Model sensitivity was 80% vs. 50% for radiologists (model predicted more true positives)
  • Model specificity was 28% vs. 77% for radiologists (model predicted more false positives)
A combined computational/radiologist approach may be best.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Prostate Cancer Staging Update

The standard staging manual for prostate cancer is a consensus issued by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). They have now issued the 8th edition (at this link), which will become effective beginning January 2018. For the most part, it is consistent with the 7th edition.

How is it used?

Staging refers to where the cancer is located in relation to the organ of origin. The purpose is to create a standard for staging that is used universally. Because universal use is important, AJCC excludes staging techniques that are not accessible everywhere – it must be available to large university teaching hospitals as well as to doctors in individual community practice. This means that such sophisticated diagnostic tools as multiparametric MRIs and advanced PET scans are excluded.

It is used in clinical practice to help assign patients to risk categories for treatment and prognosis, and it is used in clinical trials for similar purposes. Standardization is critical – every doctor reviewing the charts of patients understands that the AJCC stage means exactly the same thing. AJCC also wants to keep staging categories fairly consistent across different kinds of cancers (e.g., stage T2 means organ-contained for every cancer). Because inter-comparability over time and across cancers is an important part of its use, it is conservative – it doesn’t change all that much from edition to edition.

AJCC staging is one of several decisive parameters used for risk stratification (see below) and for determining probability of recurrence using nomograms. In the US, most of the risk stratification systems, including NCCN and CAPRA and the MSK and Han/Partin nomograms, use the AJCC system. It has been adopted in Canada, Europe and most of the rest of the world.

Clinical staging and pathological staging

AJCC distinguishes between clinical staging and pathological staging. For prostate cancer, clinical staging is determined at the time of diagnosis. Pathological staging, if it is done, is determined from the prostatectomy pathology findings. Clinical stages are usually designated by a “cT” before the number, while pathological stages are designated by a “pT” (T is German for Tier).

Clinical stages

For clinical stages, the T stage is only based on DRE findings. This represents a change from the 7th edition, which allows for the staging based on imaging results, if reliable enough. T stage is never based on biopsy results.

Clinical extraprostatic extension (stage cT3a)
Clinical staging is cT1c or cT2a in over 95% of newly diagnosed cases. So, if stage cT2a or less is used as a cutoff, clinical T stage has low negative predictive value (i.e., a low T stage is not a good indicator of risk), but good positive predictive value (i.e., a high T stage is prognostic for recurrence after treatment). Ultrasound and MRIs are not very good at identifying small areas of extraprostatic extension. Epstein, at Johns Hopkins, has identified cancer mixed with extraprostatic tissues in biopsies taken from the apex. Eastham, at MSK, has identified cancer mixed with extraprostatic tissues in biopsies taken from the base. As of the 8th edition, such pathological evidence is not used for staging.

The clinical stages are:
T category
TXPrimary tumor cannot be assessed
T0No evidence of primary tumor
T1Clinically inapparent tumor that is not palpable
T1aTumor incidental histologic finding in 5% or less of tissue resected
T1bTumor incidental histologic finding in more than 5% of tissue resected
T1cTumor identified by needle biopsy found in one or both sides, but not palpable
T2Tumor is palpable and confined within prostate
T2aTumor involves one-half of one side or less
T2bTumor involves more than one-half of one side but not both sides
T2cTumor involves both sides
T3Extraprostatic tumor that is not fixed or does not invade adjacent structures
T3aExtraprostatic extension (unilateral or bilateral)
T3bTumor invades seminal vesicle(s)
T4Tumor is fixed or invades adjacent structures other than seminal vesicles, such as external sphincter, rectum, bladder, levator muscles, and/or pelvic wall
Pathological stages
T category
T2Organ confined
T3Extraprostatic extension
T3aExtraprostatic extension (unilateral or bilateral) or microscopic invasion of bladder neck
T3bTumor invades seminal vesicle(s)
T4Tumor is fixed or invades adjacent structures other than seminal vesicles, such as external sphincter, rectum, bladder, levator muscles, and/or pelvic wall
N category
NXRegional lymph nodes were not assessed
N0No positive regional lymph nodes
N1Metastases in regional lymph node(s)
M categoryM criteria
M0No distant metastasis
M1Distant metastasis
M1aNonregional lymph node(s)
M1cOther site(s) with or without bone disease
Pelvic lymph node (N) staging

Pelvic lymph nodes get their own stage. They may be staged using enlarged lymph nodes on imaging (clinical staging), or based on dissection (PLND) and biopsy (pathological staging). The definition of “pelvic lymph node” includes the following groups: pelvic, hypogastric, obturator, iliac, and sacral (lateral, presacral, or promontory [ie, Gerota]). Recent studies have shown that the definition should probably be enlarged to include the common iliac nodes (see this link and this one). For the current edition, those lymph nodes are classified as M1a rather than N1.

Changes from the 7th edition

The major changes are:
  • T stage based on DRE only. Imaging is never used. (Nor is biopsy)
  • Dropped the term “extracapsular” in favor of “extraprostatic.”
  • No pathological T2 subcategories.

Risk stratification

AJCC has its own risk stratification system that uses the TNM staging data as well as PSA and Gleason Grade Groups. They designate their risk categories with roman numerals (e.g., IVB) and refer to them as “Prognostic Stage Groupings.” This may lead to some confusion; for example, a man with stage pT4, N0, M0, any PSA, and Grade Group 1-4 is “Stage Group IIIB,” while “Stage Group IV” refers to patients with any T stage but with N1 or M1. A patient hearing a doctor say, “You are stage four,” may be curable or incurable, depending on whether the four is the Arabic numeral (4) or the Roman numeral (IV). Fortunately, the most common risk stratification system in the US is the NCCN, which uses the designations “low risk,” “intermediate risk” or “high risk,” with sub-categories for each. Risk stratification systems may include many other risk factors beyond stage, grade and PSA. It is a complex topic which will be dealt with at a later time.


While there are very good reasons for the staging rules established by AJCC, they do not replace judgment. MRIs, PET scans, genetic data, and detailed biopsy findings, while not part of the AJCC system, should not be ignored if available. The clinician seeing a moderate bulge on an MRI that he could not feel on a DRE is justified in treating the patient as if he has extraprostatic extension, and possibly recommending against surgery and for brachy boost radiation. AJCC staging is an aid to judgment, not a replacement for judgment.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Extraprostatic extension (EPE) alone is not enough to justify adjuvant radiation

Patrick Walsh and Nathan Laurentschuk wrote an opinion piece in European Urology taking issue with the 2013 AUA/ASTRO recommendation that adjuvant radiation is indicated for men with a pathological finding of extraprostatic extension (EPE, stage pT3a) after surgery, regardless of the surgical margin status. The combination of EPE and negative surgical margins is the most common adverse finding, accounting for 60% of them. Therefore, the AUA/ASTRO guideline would lead to gross overtreatment if it were followed. They believe that it is fortunate that that guideline is increasingly ignored (see this commentary).

They looked at the three randomized clinical trials of adjuvant radiation vs. wait-and-see, for evidence that EPE alone justified adjuvant radiation.
  • ·      Although it concludes that all patients with EPE should have adjuvant radiation, SWOG 8794 never looked at that subgroup separately.
  • ·      In ARO 96-02, men with EPE and negative margins received no statistically significant benefit in terms of freedom from biochemical failure from adjuvant radiation.
  • ·      Not only was there no benefit, but EORTC 22911 found a 78% increased risk of dying among men with EPE and negative margins who received adjuvant radiation.

They conclude with a set of recommendations about adjuvant radiation:

Who should NOT receive it:

• Men with extraprostatic extension (capsular penetration) with negative margins

• Men aged >70 yr unless they are very healthy and have high grade or positive margins

• Men with bladder neck contractures or significant incontinence who have marginal indications

Who should receive it:

• Men with Gleason ≥7 with positive surgical margins

Marginal benefit:

• Men with positive seminal vesicles

In a commentary published in Practice Update, Christopher King, a radiation oncologist at UCLA, takes tissue with their recommendations. He argues that until the findings of randomized clinical trials provide more reliable data, current evidence does not justify adjuvant radiation based only on adverse pathology. Instead, based on several retrospective studies (reviewed on this site), he advocates waiting for some evidence of measurable disease. He believes that early salvage (before PSA rises above 0.2 ng/ml) will have equivalent oncological outcomes to adjuvant radiation, but will avoid the toxicity of overtreatment.