← Return to Perineurial invasion. 1 out of 10 samples cancerous. Treatment?

Discussion
Comment receiving replies
@heavyphil

I never stop learning on this Forum…funny that older papers mention PNI in the presence of PCa as being very significant for LETHAL outcomes. Yet, articles from 2022 forward, coupled with Dr Epstein’s remarks (cited by @breadmaker) show only marginal significance at worst. Amazing how you can have such diametrically opposed views on the same subject.
And these are not findings culled from bogus websites, but NIH and university research studies…
Phil

Jump to this post


Replies to "I never stop learning on this Forum…funny that older papers mention PNI in the presence of..."

Last year I attended a webinar, where I heard the speaker (I don’t recall whether he was a urologist or an RO) say that he had never seen the presence of PNI changing a treatment decision:
> if the patient was considering a prostatectomy, PNI wouldn’t change that;
> if the patient was considering radiation, PNI wouldn’t change that.

Here’s a real-life example —> My oldest brother (78y) is starting his PC journey right now, He has PSA of 5.7, PIRADS 5, 4+3=7, with PNI, and they started him on Casodex, he just had his first Eligard injection on Friday, and will start 28 sessions of IMRT (70 Grays) in a month. I find that interesting because 4-1/2 years ago, at 65y I was diagnosed with PC, PSA of 7.9, PIRADS 5, 4+3=7, without PNI, and they started me on Casodex, Eligard injections, and 28 sessions of Proton radiation (70 Grays). So, we had pretty much the same diagnosis (except me being 13 years younger at the time), and yet him with PNI and me without PNI, and both of us have pretty much the same treatment regimen.

I’ve done a little more digging and found more articles on benign PNI as far back as 2005 and as recently as 2023:
> 2005: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16096404/

> 2023: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10605475/

Seems like just one more ambiguous factor patients have to deal with.