Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Nov 23.
Published in final edited form as: Urology. 2019 Nov 9;137:108–114. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.014

Table 1.

Comparison of tumor nodules (TN) with prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma component and pure prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma

Variable Outcome PDA (n = 129) PAA (n = 3120) P Value
EPE Yes 92 (71.3%) 517 (16.6%) <.001
No 32 (24.8%) 2519 (81%)
pT2+ 5 (3.9%) 75 (2.4%)
SV+ Yes 28 (21.7%) 116 (3.7%) <.001
No 100 (78.3%) 2995 (96.3%)
SM+ Yes 51 (39.5%) 296 (9.5%) <.001
No 77 (60.5%) 2815 (90.5%)
Volume, cm3, mean (range) 4.26 (.22–36.11) .84 (.004–129.45) <.001
Gleason score (Grade Group) 3 + 3 = 6 (1) 0 (0) 1930 (61.8%) <.001**
3 + 4 = 7 (2)* 23 (17.8%) 710 (22.8%)
4 + 3 = 7 (3)* 40 (31.0%) 202 (6.5%)
8 (4) 7 (5.4%) 42 (1.3%)
9–10 (5) 59 (45.8%) 236 (7.6%)
Tumor nodule location Anterior 28 (21.7%) 1071 (34.3%) <.001
Posterior 57 (44.2%) 1784 (57.2%)
Anterior to posterior 24 (18.6%) 211 (6.8)
Extensive bilateral 20 (15.5%) 54 (1.7%)

EPE, extraprostatic extension; PAA, prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma; PDA, prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma; SM+, positive surgical margin; SV+, seminal vesicle invasion.

Cases with SM+ in the area of intraprostatic incision are staged as pT2+.

*

Tertiary pattern 5 (minor high-grade component) was present in 4 (17%) case of GS 3 + 4 = 7 and 9 (23%) case of GS 4 + 3 = 7 TNs with PDA and 38 (5.4%) and 37 (18.4%) in PAA TNs, correspondingly.

**

Only GGs 2–5 are included in analysis because PDA by definition cannot be present in GG1 TNs.