PRE-CLINICAL PHASE
PIN or Prostatic Intraepithelial
Neoplasia
A Premalignant Lesion
Definition and Prevalence
in biopsies
PIN or prostatic intraepithelial
neoplasia is a premalignant proliferation arising within the prostate.
PIN will be identified in up to 16% of men who have had transrectal
ultrasound guided prostate biopsies. PIN is most commonly found in
the peripheral zone. In PIN the cellular arrangement shows preservation
of duct and gland architecture with progressive disruption of the basal
cell layer with increasing grades of PIN while invasion of the stroma
is lacking. Other histologic or biologic changes that have been reported
include: loss of neuroendocrine and secretory differentiation, nuclear
and nucleolar abnormalities, neovascularity, increased proliferative
potential and genetic instability with variation of DNA content. With
increasing degrees of PIN an increasing degree of nuclear aberration
is seen along with increasing basal cell disruption. PIN has an intact
or fragmented basal cell layer, whereas cancer (PC) lacks a basal cell
layer. Basal cell specific immunostaining for Cytokeratin is present
in PIN but is absent in areas of PC.
PIN is graded from the lowest
grade (Grade I) with the least changes to the highest grade (Grade
III) with the most severe changes. Most medical papers categorize PIN
as either high grade or low grade. High grade PIN and Grade III PIN
are used synonomously. PC is associated more with high grade PIN than
low grade. PIN appears to predate the appearance of PC by more than
5 years.
Association of PIN with
PC
In various series in which
high grade PIN was found, PC in subsequent biopsies was found in 33-100%
of cases.1 In one study, PIN was detected in a total of 66 men: 21
with low grade PIN and 45 with high grade PIN. Repeat biopsies revealed
PC in 5/21 or 24% of the low grade group and in 26/45 or 58% of the
high grade group.2
In another study 100 patients
with high grade PIN were compared to 112 without PIN. PC was identified
in 35% of subsequent biopsies from the PIN group compared with 13%
in the control group. The likelihood of cancer increased as the interval
from the initial biopsy increased. High grade PIN, patient age and
PSA were highly significant predictors of PC with PIN having the highest
risk ratio of 14.93. PIN was more predictive of PC in older patients
and those with a serum PSA of >4ng/ml. 3
Need for Systematic Rebiopsies
in PIN to detect PC
There is a random distribution
of PIN in its association with PC. Systematic biopsies of the entire
gland in men with PIN are therefore preferable to obtaining biopsies
only from sites of previously documented PIN. If repeat biopsies had
been performed only on the same side as previously documented high
grade PIN then 35% of prostate carcinomas would have been missed. 2
There is also a correlation
between quantity of PIN and the mulifocality of concurrent PC. 4 Patients
with PIN should be considered an important study population for therapies
aimed at chemoprevention of PC. Agents such as retinoic acid analogs,
synthetic vitamin D, genistein, lycopene, modified citrus pectin, 5
a reductase inhibitors, low fat diet, green tea should be studied in
such patients to see if the incidence of documented PC on subsequent
biopsies will decline with a particular treatment.
Relationship of PIN to
age
152 prostate glands were
examined at autopsy in young male patients( less than the age of 50)
dying from traumatic causes in Wayne County Michigan. 5 36 of 152 or
24% of these prostate glands had PIN. Of these 36 cases, 31 were low
grade PIN and 5 were high grade PIN. Of those 5 patients with high
grade PIN histological PC was identified in all 5. In the low grade
PIN population there were 6/28 or 21% with histologic cases of PC.
Low grade PIN was identified
in the 3rd decade of life (20-29) in 3/35 or 9% of patients, in 11/55
or 20% of those males in the 4th decade of life and in 22/50 or 44%
of men in their 5th decade. High grade PIN was not seen until the 5th
decade. The incidence of histologic cancer was 15/55 or 27% in the
4th decade and 17/50 or 34% in the 5th decade. These slides were reviewed
by well-known pathologists.
The average tumor dimension
was 2.25 mm with Gleason's scores ranging from 2-5. Of interest is
that in the 7 reported series of histological cancer involving 1,888
asymptomatic males, only 389 cases of PC or 20.6% were reported 5.
Of the 224 males less than the age of 50, only 11 or 4.9% were found
to have histologic PC. This is surprisingly at variance with the 32/152
or 21% reported by the authors of this study. Please see the tables
below.
| Age range |
10-19 |
20-29 |
30-39 |
40-49 |
Totals |
| Decade |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
5th |
|
| # patients |
12 |
35 |
55 |
50 |
152 |
| gland wt. * |
22 |
27 |
33 |
39 |
|
| Pin #(%) |
|
|
|
|
|
| low grade |
0(0) |
3(9) |
11(20) |
17(34) |
31 |
| high grade |
0(0) |
0(0) |
0(0) |
5(10) |
5 |
| PIN % |
0 |
9 |
20 |
44 |
36/152(24) |
| PC #(%) |
0/12(0) |
0/35(0) |
15/55(27) |
17/50(34) |
32/152(21) |
* = mean prostate gland weight
In the above table low grade
PIN is shown to start in the 20-29 age range and increase almost twofold
for each of the next two decades. High grade PIN was not seen to start
until the 40-49 age range and in all 5 cases PC was also found. Histologic
cancer begins in the 4th decade and increases slightly in the next
decade. These findings are also shown proportionately in respect to
the age ranges, and to the overall population of 152 patients studied
in the scatter table below. The table below also points out that low
grade PIN occurs without association with PC in 25/31 or 81% of cases
and with PC in 6/31 or 19% of cases in the age ranges of 20-49 in the
patient population studied.
| 10-19 |
20-29 |
30- 39 |
40-49 |
|
|
|
|
| # 12 |
# 35 |
# 55 |
# 50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PC PC PC |
|
|
PC PC PC PC PC |
PC PC PC |
|
|
PC PC PC PC PC PC
PC PC |
PC PC PCL PCL |
|
|
PCL PCL |
PCL PCL LG
LG LG LG |
|
LG LG LG |
LG LG LG LG LG LG
LG LG LG |
LG LG LG LG LG LG
LG LG LG
PCH PCH PCH PCH PCH
|
LG = low grade PIN
PCL = histologic prostate
cancer also found in patient with low grade PIN
PC = histologic prostate
cancer found isolated without PIN
PCH = histologic prostate
cancer also found in patient with high grade PIN
Based on these findings,
our recommendations are as follows:
1. Patients with high grade
PIN need to have regular monitoring of serum PSA levels along with
digital rectal examinations. These should be done at a minimum of 6
month intervals. Any trends showing significant increase in PSA or
changes in the DRE should prompt earlier rebiopsies of the prostate
under TRUSP guidance. Considerations for calculations of PSA velocity
and doubling times in such patients may be of additive value.
2. The use of tools such
as PSA II and possibly the Prostasure blood test may be helpful in
decisions regarding intensity of rebiopsies.
3. We should be performing
repeat biopsies on patients with high grade PIN at regular intervals.
This may be anytime between three to twelve months, depending on circumstances
relating to the findings in items 1 and 2 above.
4. Patients with high grade
PIN should be considered as having occult PC until proven otherwise.
REFERENCES
1.
Keetch DW, Humphrey P, Stahl D, Smith DA and Catalona WJ: Morphometric
analysis and clinical followup of isolated prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia
in needle biopsy of the prostate. J. Urol. ,
154:347, 1995.
2. Shepherd D, Keetch
DW, Humphrey PA, et.al. Repeat biopsy strategy in men with isolated
prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on prostate needle biopsy. J
Urol 156, 460-463, 1996.
3. Davidson, D, Bostwick
DG, Qian J, Wollan PC, Oesterling JE, Rudders RA, Siroky M and Stilmant
M: Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a risk factor for adenocarcinoma:
predictive accuracy in needle biopsies. J Urol., 154:1295-1299, 1995.
4. Weinstein, MH, & Epstein
JI: Significance of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia
on needle biopsy. Hum Path., 24:624, 1993.
5. Sakr WA, Haas GP,
Cassin BF, Pontes JE and Crissman JD: The frequency of carcinoma
and intraepithelial neoplasia of the prostate in young male patients.
J Urol. 150:379-385, 1993.