Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Àü¸³¼±ºñ´ëÁõ ¹× Àü¸³¼± ¾ÏȯÀÚ¿¡¼­ Àü¸®¹ø »óÇdz» ¾Ï°ú Àü¸³¼± ƯÀÌÇ׿ø ¹× Àü¸³¼± ƯÀÌÇ׿ø ¹Ðµµ¿ÍÀÇ °ü°è Relationship of Prostate Specific Antigen & Prostate Specific Antigen Density and Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Patient with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Prostatic Cancer

´ëÇѺñ´¢±â°úÇÐȸÁö 1995³â 36±Ç 6È£ p.614 ~ 622
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Àü ö ÀÌ¿µ±¸/½ÉÁ¤¿ø

Abstract


Prostate intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) is a putative premaligant change in the human prostate, which is an intraluminal prolifertration of the secretory cells of the prostatic duct-acinar system that is enveloped by a basal cell layer and
displays a
spectrum of dysplastic cytologic features ranging from minimal atypia (low grade PIN) to those which are ultimately indistinguishable from carcinoma cells (high grade PIN). To evaluate the clinical significance of the PIN in prostatic tumor and
BPH, we
reviewed the serum prostate specific antigen (PSA), prostate specific antigen density (PSAD), and pathologic findings in the specimen of 21 BPH and 11 Prostate cancers, which were pathologically confirmed. The distributions of PIN are 7/21 (33%)
in
BPH
and 8/11 (73%) in prostatic ca (P<0.05). The mean value (¡¾SD) of PSA and PSAD in BPH patient were 8.42¡¾5.57 ng/ml, 0.16¡¾0.09 for PIN(-), 10.13¡¾5.97 ng/ml, 0.17¡¾0.09 for PIN (+), and in prostatic cancer patient were 60.53¡¾1.83 ng/ml,
1.42¡¾0.25 for
PIN(-), 54.15¡¾34.61 ng/ml, 1.28¡¾0.84 for PIN(+), 10.13¡¾5.97 ng/ml, 0.17¡¾0.09 for PIN(+), and in prostatic cancer patient were 60.53¡¾1.83 ng/ml, 1.42¡¾0.25 for PIN(-), 54.15¡¾34.61 ng/ml, 1.28¡¾0.84 for PIN (+), respectively. The mean value
(¡¾SD)
of PSA & PSAD according to histologic types of BPH were 9.04¡¾3.88 ng/ml, 0.17¡¾0.06 for grandular type, 5.57¡¾1.31 ng/ml, 0.10¡¾0.03 for stromal type, and 11.188.93 ng/ml, 0.19¡¾0.13 for inixed type. The distributions of PIN according to
histologic
types of BPH were 30% (3/10) for glandular type, 40%(2/5) for stromal type, and 33% (2/6) for mixed type. All 7 PIN(+) BPH were low grade, while, of the 8 PIN(+) prostatic Ca, 1 was low grade and 7 were high grade. From these results, the
frequency
of
PIN was higher in prostatic cancer than BPh (P<0.05). PIN had no significant influence on PSA elevation in prostatic cancer and BPH. There was no correation beteen PSA. PSAD and histologic types of BPH (P>0.05). There was no significant
difference
in
the distribution of PIN according to histologic types of BPH. And high grade PIN was observed only in prostatic cancer. Therefore, if high grade PIN is observed in pathologic specimen, undetected prostatic cancer hould be found.

Å°¿öµå

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS