Prostate cancer presented with de novo brain metastases as initial manifestation: A case report with review of the literature

Case Report | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2640-1053/073

Prostate cancer presented with de novo brain metastases as initial manifestation: A case report with review of the literature

  • Konstantinos Tsapakidis 1*
  • Ioannis Litos 1
  • Vasileios Papadopoulos 1
  • Maria Tolia 2
  • Nikolaos Tsoukalas 3

*Corresponding Author: Konstantinos Tsapakidis and Ioannis Litos, Department of Medical Oncology, University General Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Thessaly, Greece.

Citation: K Tsapakidis, I Litos, V Papadopoulos, M Tolia, N Tsoukalas. (2021) Prostate cancer presented with de novo brain metastases as initial manifestation: A case report with review of the literature. Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics. 5(1); Doi: 10.31579/2640-1053/073

Copyright: © 2021, Konstantinos Tsapakidis and Ioannis Litos, This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: 20 February 2021 | Accepted: 22 March 2021 | Published: 26 March 2021

Keywords: Keywords

Abstract

Abstract

Introduction

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer and among the leading causes of cancer death in men and its clinical symptoms vary a lot. The most common metastatic site is the bones [1], but rarely prostate cancer can metastasize to brain in very advanced stages of the disease. However, brain metastases giving neurological symptoms as first manifestation of prostate cancers have been reported. Research of international literature revealed only seventeen patients (including our own) that were diagnosed with prostate cancer presented with neurological symptoms (Tables 1, 2).

Table 1: Reported cases of brain metastasis from prostate cancer. d: days, m: months, N/A: Not assessed, w: weeks, y: years * PSA value at diagnosis
Table 2: Reported cases of brain metastasis from prostate cancer with de novo presentation or after local therapy. N/A: Not assessed, y: years

Case report

A 61-years-old man, ex-smoker of 25 pack-years, with free personal history and positive family history, presented with headache and tingled right hand. From the physical examination there was reduced muscular strength of the right hand. A brain CT demonstrated multiple secondary metastases (Fig. 1) and the patient started WBRT.

For the finding of the primary site we did lung and abdomen CT, bronchoscopy, endoscopy of larynx, upper GI endoscopy and colonoscopy which did not show something pathological. From the tumor markers of the patient we had CEA 44,6ng/ml (<4,7), PSA 12,94ng/ml (<4), NSE 15,9 (<16,3). Due to the raised PSA we did a prostate U/S, which showed hypertrophy of the gland. In the figure- rectal examination we found a tough prostate and the biopsy of the gland showed a prostate adenocarcinoma (Fig. 2). Then we did a bone scanning which revealed one secondary lesion on the 4th thoracic vertebra.

Unfortunately his neurological symptoms got worse before the start of the hormonotherapy and, finally, the patient died.

Figure 1: Brain computed tomography (CT) showing multiple secondary metastases
Figure 2: The histopathological diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate in needle core biopsy specimen

Discussion

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and it is the second leading cause of death due to cancer [2]. It represents 26% of all new diagnosed cancers in men and 9% cancer-related deaths [3]. The risk for prostate cancer increases steeply with age. The rise in incidence is basically explained by improved detection capability, using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and transrectal ultrasound [4–6].

The disease spreads by local extension through the capsule and seminal vesicles, the lymphatic system to regional nodes or hematogenously to bone and visceral sites. Bone is the most common site of prostate cancer metastases, producing predominantly osteoblastic lesions rather than osteolytic, although both types may coexist [6].

Brain metastases are present, especially in advanced stages of the disease. Adenocarcinomas of the prostate can metastasize to the brain from either metastases in the lungs and the bones (multistep or cascade theory) [7], or primarily to the central nervous system (single step theory) [8]. The most common intracranial sites of prostate cancer metastases are the dura (67%), cerebrum (25%) and cerebellum (8%) [9].

Almost always, intracranial metastases develop after the diagnosis of the prostatic adenocarcinoma is established; however, intracranial metastases are often difficult to detect, clinically silent and primarily diagnosed at autopsy. The mean time interval between initial diagnosis of prostatic cancer and diagnosis of intracranial metastases is 5,1 years [10].

Interestingly, the literature contains only 16 patients in which neurological symptoms secondary to intracranial metastases have served as the first sign of prostatic adenocarcinoma [11]. Headache, motor dysfunction and seizure appear to be the most common symptoms associated with metastatic prostate cancer.

Treatment options include radiosurgery, conventional external beam radiotherapy and surgery. Radiotherapy in combination with high doses of dexamethasone may be benefitial [12]. Craniotomy also appear to lengthen survival time [14] and hormonal treatment appear to have some efficacy [13-14].

Conclusion

Although neurological symptoms as a first clinical manifestation of prostate cancer are rare, it should be included in the differential diagnosis of a patient presented with secondary symptoms from intracranial metastases. Clinicians should have an index of suspicion for prostate cancer, check PSA and do prostate ultrasound during the investigation of the primary site in a patient presented with secondary brain metastases. Early detection and treatment should be the primary goal, as they may lengthen the survival for some patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.

img

Dr Elena Popa

It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.

img

Dr Nikolaos Andreas Chrysanthakopoulos

Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee

img

Robert W McGee

Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D

img

Aibing Rao

I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.

img

Kashani Mehdi

Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,

img

Alla Konstantinovna Politova