CLINICS 2006;61(6):545-50

CLINICAL SCIENCES

ANALYSIS OF THE RISK FACTORS FOR INCIDENTAL

CARCINOMA OF THE PROSTATE IN PATIENTS WITH
BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA

Alberto Azoubel Antunes, Geraldo de Campos Freire, Domingos Aiello Filho,

Jos Cury, Miguel Srougi

Antunes AA, Freire G de C, Aiello Filho D, Cury J, Srougi M. Analysis of the risk factors for incidental carcinoma of the
prostate in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Clinics. 2006;61(6):545-50.
PURPOSE: To determine the occurence of incidental carcinoma of the prostate, its characteristics, and the risk factors for this
diagnosis in a group of patients surgically treated for benign prostatic hyperplasia.
METHODS: The study comprised a retrospective analysis of 218 patients. After surgical treatment, patients with the finding of
incidental carcinoma of the prostate were compared to those without this finding. The preoperative variables analyzed were
patient age, digital rectal examination, PSA, PSA density, prostate volume, and preoperative prostate biopsy. We also determined
the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of digital rectal examination and PSA for the
finding of incidental carcinoma of the prostate at surgical specimen analysis.
RESULTS: Thirteen (6.2%) out of the 218 patients presented incidental carcinoma of the prostate. Eight (61.5%) of these tumors
were classified as T1a and 5 (38.5%) as T1b. Only advanced age (P = 0.003) and the presence of a suspect digital rectal examination
(P = 0. 016) were statistically related to the findings of the surgical specimen analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive
value, and negative predictive value for the diagnosis of incidental carcinoma were 23.0%, 96.6%, 30.0%, and 95.2% for a suspect
digital rectal examination and 85.0%, 34.1%, 7.5%, and 97.2% for a PSA greater than 4.0 ng/mL. The accuracy for these methods
was 92.2% and 37.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Advanced age and the presence of a suspect digital rectal examination represent the most important risk
factors for the diagnosis of an incidental carcinoma of the prostate. However, the low positive predictive values reflect the weak
correlations among these variables.
KEYWORDS: Benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prostatectomy. Prostate-specific antigen. Prostatic neoplasms.

INTRODUCTION
Prostate cancer is the most common malignant tumor
in men.1 Similarly, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is
the most frequent benign tumor, and about 90% of the men
are affected by the ninth decade of life.2 Since many of
these individuals are going to be surgically treated by
transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or open prosDivision of Urology, So Paulo University Medical School - So Paulo/SP,
Brazil.
Email: [email protected]
Received for publication on July 03, 2006.
Accepted for publication on August 16, 2006.

tatectomy (OP) to relieve bladder outlet obstruction,3,4 a significant rate of carcinoma is expected to be found incidental
to surgical specimen analysis.
Incidental carcinoma of the prostate (ICP) refers to well
differentiated tumors that grow in a transitional zone and
are eventually found during TURP and OP.5 With the widespread use of prostate specific antigen (PSA) as a tumor
marker for screening of prostate cancer, the incidence of
ICP ranges between 4.3% and 7.4% of the surgical procedures for BPH.6-8
In spite of being considered tumors of low malignant
potential, if not treated, the biological behavior of ICP may
vary, and significant progression and death can occur. A

545

Analysis of the risk factors for incidental carcinoma

Antunes AA et al.

study from the Mayo clinic reported progression rates of

8% to 37% for the T1a cases in a 10 year follow-up period.5 For this reason, the identification of parameters that
could help in the preoperative diagnosis of these tumors is
pivotal, since most patients would benefit from immediate
curative treatment.
The aim of this study was to determine the incidence
of ICP, its clinical and pathological characteristics, and the
risk factors for this diagnosis in a group of patients with
BPH treated surgically.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study comprised a retrospective analysis of 218 patients with clinical or pathologic findings of BPH who were
treated with OP or TURP. In the preoperative period, patients were evaluated through digital rectal examination,
serum PSA, acid phosphatases and creatinine, urine assays,
and ultrasound to determine prostate volume.
A suspect digital rectal examination was defined as the
presence of nodules or irregularities on the prostate surface.
Every patient with a suspect digital rectal examination and/
or an increased baseline PSA suggestive of prostate cancer underwent preoperative transrectal ultrasound-guided
prostate biopsy. Patients with the finding of prostate cancer were not considered for study. Ultrasound-based prostate volume was determined as previously described.9
All patients were treated surgically through TURP (169
patients) or OP (49 patients). Indications for surgery included the presence of severe low urinary tract symptoms
that was unresponsive to clinical treatment, urinary retention, recurrent urinary tract infections, persistent hematuria,
presence of bladder calculi or diverticula, or hydronephrosis due to BPH.
The retrieved prostate tissue was weighed, and surgical specimens were fixed in 10% formalin and forwarded
to pathology for examination. This analysis included a
semiquantitative determination of the percent of prostate
tissue involved in the tumor. Pathological stage was defined
by the 1992 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)
staging system,10 and the Gleason score was used for analysis of histological grade.11
After surgical treatment, patients with the finding of ICP
were compared to those with diagnosis of BPH. The
preoperative variables analyzed were patient age, digital
rectal examination, serum PSA, PSA density, prostate volume, and preoperative prostate biopsy.
For statistical analysis, we used Student t, Wilcoxon,
chi-squared, and Fisher exact tests. Statistical significance
was set as a P value d0.05. We also determined the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and nega-

546

CLINICS 2006;61(6):545-50

tive predictive value (NPV) of digital rectal examination

and serum PSA for the finding of ICP on surgical specimen analysis.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the patient characteristics. The mean age
was 67.9 years (49 to 90). The great majority of patients
presented a nonsuspect digital rectal examination (95.4%)
and a PSA value between 4.0 and 10.0 ng/mL (41.7%). The
mean prostate volume was 65.4 g, and about 27% of the
patients had an indwelling bladder catheter due to acute
urinary retention. Forty-seven percent of the patients underwent a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, and
77.5% of the patients were treated through TURP.
Thirteen (6.2%) out of the 218 patients presented ICP.
Eight (61.5%) of these tumors were classified as T1a and
5 (38.5%) as T1b. Table 2 shows the characteristics of the
patients with ICP. Three patients with stage T1a tumors presented a suspect digital rectal examination, while no patients with stage T1b tumors presented this finding. The
mean PSA for this last group was about half the value of
the patients with stage T1a tumors. This finding can be explained by the fact that patients with stage T1a tumors had
greater prostate volumes when compared to those with stage
T1b tumors (83.1 g versus 54.2 g). The majority of patients
with T1b tumors were using an indwelling bladder catheter, and none underwent a preoperative prostate biopsy.
The mean percent of prostate tissue retrieved from patients
with stage T1a tumors was 49.2% versus 27.2% for patients
with T1b tumors, which reflects the fact that 3 patients from
the first group were treated through OP, in which a greater
amount of adenoma is removed when compared to endoscopic techniques. All the patients with T1a tumors were
treated with watchful-waiting, and among the 5 patients
with T1b tumors, 2 were observed, 2 underwent radical
prostatectomy, and 1 underwent bilateral orchidectomy because he was 82 years old and had a Gleason score of 9 (5
+ 4).
Among the analyzed risk factors, only an advanced age
(P = 0.003) and the presence of a suspect digital rectal examination (P = 0.016) were significantly related to the finding of ICP on surgical specimen analysis (Table 3). The
mean age among patients with ICP was 73.9 11.2 years,
versus 68.0 7.4 years among patients with BPH. Similarly, while 23% of the patients with ICP presented a suspect digital rectal examination, this finding was present in
only 3.4% of the patients with BPH.
When we correlated the presence of a PSA value greater
than 4.0 mg/mL with the finding of ICP among patients without an indwelling bladder catheter using the chi-squared test,

CLINICS 2006;61(6):545-50

Analysis of the risk factors for incidental carcinoma

Antunes AA et al.

Table 1 - Preoperative characteristics of the patients

Variables
Mean age (years) SD
Median
Digital rectal examination
Nonsuspect
Suspect
PSA (ng/mL)
< 4.0
4.0 to 10.0
>10.0
PSA density
< 0.15
>0.15
Mean prostate volume (g) SD
(min-max)
Median
Presence of bladder catheter
Yes
No
Transrectal prostate biopsy
Yes
No
Surgery
TURP
OP

67.9 7.8 (49 to 90)

68
208 (95.4%)
10 (4.6%)
72 (33.0%)
91 (41.7%)
55 (25.2%)
162 (74.3%)
56 (25.7%)
65.4 33.6
(21 to 166.3)
57.1
59 (27.1%)
159 (72.9%)
102 (46.8%)
116 (53.2%)
169 (77.5%)
49 (22.5%)

SD: Standard deviation.

Table 2 - Characteristics of the patients with Characteristics of patients with stage T1b incidental prostate cancer (ICP)

Mean age (years)

Suspected rectal examination
Mean prostate weight (g)
Mean PSA (ng/mL)
Mean PSA density (ng/mL/g)
Presence of bladder catheter
Preoperative prostate biopsy
Surgery
TURP
OP
Percent tissue removed (%)
Definitive treatment
Watchful-waiting
Radical prostatectomy
Orchidectomy

Stage
T1A (8 cases)

T1B(5 cases)

74.8
3 (37.5%)
83.1
12.7
0.17
3 (37.5%)
6 (75.0%)

72.4
0 (0.0%)
54.2
6.6
0.12
3 (60.0%)
0 (0.0%)

5 (62.5%)
3 (37.5%)
49.2

5 (100.0%)
0 (0.0%)
27.2

8 (100%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)

2 (40.0%)
2 (40.0%)
1 (20.0%)

this variable was not statistically significant (P = 0.220). The

presence of a preoperative negative prostate biopsy for carcinoma did not exclude the possibility of ICP on surgical
specimen analysis, because 6 (5.8%) out of 102 patients with
a negative prostate biopsy had this finding.
The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the diagnosis of ICP were 23.0%, 96.6%, 30.0%, and 95.2% for
a suspect digital rectal examination and 85.0%, 34.1%,
7.5%, and 97.2% for a serum PSA greater than 4.0 ng/mL
respectively. The accuracy for these methods was 92.2%
and 37.1%, respectively.

DISCUSSION
Preoperative identification of cases with ICP is pivotal
for institution of early radical curative treatment. In the
present study, 6.2% of the patients presented ICP. Of these,
61.5% and 38.5% of the tumors were classified as T1a or
T1b, respectively. Among the analyzed risk factors, only
the presence of an advanced age and a suspect digital rectal examination showed a significant relationship with the
finding of ICP. The mean age of patients with ICP was
about 6 years greater than patients with BPH, and the find-

547

Analysis of the risk factors for incidental carcinoma

Antunes AA et al.

CLINICS 2006;61(6):545-50

Table 3 - Risk factors for diagnosis of Characteristics of patients with stage T1b incidental prostate cancer (ICP)
Variable

ICP(13 patients)

BPH(205 patients)

P value

Mean age (years) SD

Rectal examination
Suspect
Nonsuspect
PSA (ng/mL)
< 4.0
4.0 to 10.0
> 10.0
PSA density
< 0.15
0.15
Mean prostate volume (g) SD
Preoperative prostate biopsy
Yes
No

73.9 11.2

68.0 7.4

0.003 *
0.016 **

3 (23.0%)
10 (76.9%)

7 (3.4%)
198 (96.5%)

2 (15.3%)
5 (38.4%)
6 (46.1%)

70 (34.1%)
86 (41.9%)
49 (23.9%)

8 (61.5%)
5 (38.4%)
72 28.8

154 (75.1%)
51 (24.8%)
65 33.9

6 (46.1%)
7 (53.8%)

96 (46.8%)
109 (53.1%)

0.159 **

0.326 **

0.179 ***

* Student t test; ** Fisher exact test; *** Wilcoxon test; BPH = benign prostate hypertrophy; PSA = prostate-specific antigen

ing of a suspect digital examination was 7 times more frequent among patients with ICP when compared to patients
with BPH.
The finding of an ICP has been less frequent during the
last decades. An analysis from the Utah cancer registry in
the United States showed that the detection rates of ICP
through TURP in men with 45 years or more were 39.0%
between 1980 and 1984, 33.9% between 1985 and 1989,
12.2% between 1990 and 1994, and 7.4% between 1995
and 1999.6 A possible explanation for these numbers is the
decrease in the TURP rates since 1987.12 A North American study showed that when comparing the periods of 1984
to 1990 with 1991 to 1997, the TURP rates decreased from
14.6 to 6.7 for 1000 white men and from 11.8 to 6.5 for
1000 black men respectively.13
In part, this finding can be explained by the increased
number of patients treated with alpha-blockers or other alternative methods for treating BPH and even by the increasing role of the patients in the final therapeutic decision.6,12
Furthermore, with the widespread use of PSA and the increased acceptance and development of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy techniques, many patients
were found to have prostate cancer and underwent specific
treatment.6
Most frequently, patients with the diagnosis of ICP
present well differentiated tumors with low malignant potential. A study comparing the cases of prostate cancer
found through prostate biopsy with the ICP cases diagnosed
by TURP showed organ-confined rates of 81.6% versus
95.9%, respectively. Similarly, the well or moderately differentiated tumor rates were greater among the ICP cases
when compared to tumors found through prostate biopsy
(89.7% against 80.7% respectively).6 However, a study of
786 patients with BPH treated by TURP found a 4.3% ICP

548

rate and demonstrated that 32.3% of these presented a

Gleason score of 7 to 10.8
The mean age and mean PSA value among patients with
stage T1a tumors was 70.1 years and 3.3 ng/mL, and among
patients with stage T1b tumors was 74 years and 2.9 ng/
mL, respectively. When compared with the rest of the
group, patients with ICP were older and had prostates with
smaller volumes.8 In the present study, 1 (7.6%) out of the
13 cases with ICP presented a Gleason score of 9 (5 + 4).
This patient was 82 years old, had a nonsuspect digital examination, a 65 g prostate, and a PSA value of 6.6 ng/mL;
for these reasons, he did not undergo a preoperative prostate biopsy. This finding confirms the necessity of finding
these cases preoperatively, since there may be a significant
number of these tumors with aggressive biological behavior.
Only 3 (23.0%) out of the 13 patients underwent definitive treatment.
Surprisingly, the presence of a high PSA value was not
related with the finding of ICP. Despite its widespread use
as a tumor marker, PSA is prostate tissue-specific and not
prostate cancer-specific; therefore, the serum levels may
also be altered in cases of BPH and prostatitis.14 One possible explanation for the lack of relationship between high
PSA values and the finding of ICP among patients with urinary retention is the presence of the indwelling bladder
catheter. However, when we analyzed the presence of high
PSA levels among the 159 patients without bladder catheters this variable remained without significance. Possibly,
the limited number of patients with the finding of ICP is
the reason why we did not find a significant relationship.
In the present study, the finding of a negative prostate
biopsy did not exclude the possibility of ICP upon surgical
specimen analysis, since 5.8% of the patients with a negative biopsy presented this finding. We know that when a pros-

CLINICS 2006;61(6):545-50

tate biopsy is performed with the standard sextant technique,

the false negative rate is about 20% to 25%.15 Furthermore,
due to its low specificity, when a prostate biopsy is performed
in patients with PSA values > 3 ng/mL, 70% to 80% of the
cases will present negative results for cancer.16
Finally, with the present study, we conclude that an advanced age and the presence of a suspect digital rectal examination for prostate cancer represent the most important
risk factors for the diagnosis of an ICP. However, the low

Analysis of the risk factors for incidental carcinoma

Antunes AA et al.

PPV reflects the weak correlation between these variables

and the finding of an ICP. These results mean that new
methods for the preoperative diagnosis of the patients with
ICP are needed. Perhaps with the development of molecular techniques that allow the differentiation between benign
and malignant prostate tissue through determination of the
cellular gene expression profile,17 these tumors could be
easily detected, favoring the institution of early curative
specific treatment.

RESUMO
Antunes AA, Freire G de C, Aiello Filho D, Cury J, Srougi
M. Anlise dos fatores de risco para o diagnstico do carcinoma incidental da prstata em pacientes com hiperplasia
prosttica benigna. Clinics. 2006;61(6):545-50.
OBJETIVO: Determinar a ocorrncia do carcinoma
incidental da prstata, suas caractersticas e fatores de risco para o diagnstico em um grupo de pacientes tratados
cirurgicamente para hiperplasia prosttica benigna.
MTODOS: O estudo compreendeu a anlise retrospectiva de 218 pacientes. Aps o tratamento cirrgico, os pacientes com achado de carcinoma incidental da prstata
foram comparados com os pacientes sem este achado. As
variveis pr-operatrias analisadas foram idade, toque
retal, PSA, densidade do PSA, volume prosttico e bipsia
prosttica pr-operatria. Tambm foram determinados a
sensibilidade, especificidade, valor preditivo positivo e valor preditivo negativo do toque retal e do PSA para o diagnstico do carcinoma incidental da prstata.
RESULTADOS: Treze (6.2%) dos 218 pacientes apre-

sentaram carcinoma incidental da prstata. Oito (61.5%)

deles foram classificados com T1a e 5 (38.5%) como T1b.
Apenas a idade avanada (p=0.003) e a presena de um toque retal suspeito (p=0.016) se relacionaram estatisticamente com este achado na pea cirrgica. A sensibilidade, especificidade, valore preditivo positivo e negativo para o diagnstico de carcinoma incidental da prstata foram de 23.0%, 96.6%, 30.0%, 95.2% para a presena
de um toque retal suspeito e 85.0%, 34.1%, 7.5% e 97.2%
para um valor de PSA maior que 4.0 ng/ml respectivamente. A exatidos dois mtodos foi de 92.2% e 37.1% respectivamente.
CONCLUSES: A idade avanada e a presena de um toque retal suspeito representam os fatores de risco mais importantes para o diagnstico de carcinoma incidental da
prstata.
UNITERMOS: Hiperplasia prosttica benigna. Prostatectomia. Antgeno prosttico especfico. Neoplasias
prostticas.

549

Analysis of the risk factors for incidental carcinoma

Antunes AA et al.

CLINICS 2006;61(6):545-50

REFERENCES
1.

Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, Samuels A, Tiwari RC, Ghafoor A, et al.

Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:10-30.

2.

Tchetgen MB, Oesterling JE. The role of prostate-specific antigen in

the evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Clin North Am.
1995;22:333-44.

3.

Tubaro A, Carter S, Hind A, Vicentini C, Miano L. A prospective study

of the safety and efficacy of suprapubic transvesical prostatectomy in
patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2001;166:172-6.

4.

Kuntz RM, Ahyai S, Lehrich K, Fayad A. Transurethral holmium laser

enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocautery resection
of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial in 200 patients. J Urol.
2004;172:1012-6.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Bostwick DG. The pathology of incidental carcinoma. Cancer Surv.

1995;23:7-18.
Merrill RM, Wiggins CL. Incidental detection of population-based
prostate cancer incidence rates through transurethral resection of the
prostate. Urol Oncol. 2002;7:213-9.
Zigeuner RE, Lipsky K, Riedler I, Auprich M, Schips L, Salfellner M,
et al. Did the rate of incidental prostate cancer change in the era of PSA
testing? A retrospective study of 1127 patients. Urology. 2003;62:4515.
Argyropoulos A, Doumas K, Farmakis A, Aristas O, Kontogeorgos G,
Lykourinas M. Characteristics of patients with stage T1b incidental
prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2005;39:289-93.
Scheckowitz EM, Resnick MI. Imaging of the prostate. Benign prostatic
hyperplasia. Urol Clin North Am. 1995;22:321-32.

550

10. Beahrs OH, Henson DE, Hutter RVP, Kennedy BJ, editors. American
Joint Committee on Cancer Manual for Staging Cancer 1992; (4th
edition) Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott.
11. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum
Pathol 1992;23:273-9.
12. Lu-Yao GL, Barry MJ, Chang CH, Wasson JH, Wennberg JE.
Transurethral resection of the prostate among Medicare beneficiaries
in the United States: time trends and outcomes. Prostate Patient
Outcomes Research Team (PORT). Urology. 1994;44:692-8.
13. Wasson JH, Bubolz TA, Lu-Yao GL, Walker-Corkery E, Hammond CS,
Barry MJ. Transurethral resection of the prostate among medicare
beneficiaries: 1984 to 1997. For the Patient Outcomes Research Team
for Prostatic Diseases. J Urol. 2000;164:1212-5.
14. Schalken JA, Bergh A, Bono A, Foster C, Gospadarowicz M, Isaacs
WB, et al. Molecular prostate cancer pathology: current issues and
achievements. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 2005;(216):82-93.
15. Mariappan P, Chong WL, Sundram M, Mohamed SR. Increasing prostate
biopsy cores based on volume vs the sextant biopsy: a prospective
randomized controlled clinical study on cancer detection rates and
morbidity. BJU Int. 2004;94:307-10.
16. Djavan B, Zlotta A, Remzi M, Ghawidel K, Basharkhah A, Schulman
CC, et al. Optimal predictors of prostate cancer on repeat prostate biopsy:
a prospective study of 1,051 men. J Urol. 2000;163:1144-8.
17. Russo G, Zegar C, Giordano A. Advantages and limitations of microarray
technology in human cancer. Oncogene. 2003;22:6497-507.