OBJECTIVES: To stratify the prognosis of lymph node-negative, seminal vesicle-positive tumors in men with prostate cancer after radical retropubic prostatectomy. METHODS: Sixty cases were analyzed for multiple parameters and correlated with postoperative biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) progression. Variables included Gleason score, primary Gleason pattern, percentage of Gleason pattern 4, any presence of Gleason pattern 5, method of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), margin positivity, SVI extent, SVI bilaterality, vascular invasion, extent of extraprostatic extension, length of tumor extending along the seminal vesicles, presence of intraductal carcinoma within the prostate, bladder neck margin positivity, and tumor volume. RESULTS: We were able to stratify the prognosis based on the combination of a variation of the Gleason score and margin status and vascular invasion status. Using this stratification, a few patients had an excellent long-term prognosis, with most patients split into two groups, one experiencing rapid and the other slower progression. CONCLUSIONS: SVI is not associated with a uniformly poor prognosis. Rather, tumors can be substratified by pathologic parameters into groups with differing prognoses based on routine histologic examination.
OBJECTIVES: To stratify the prognosis of lymph node-negative, seminal vesicle-positive tumors in men with prostate cancer after radical retropubic prostatectomy. METHODS: Sixty cases were analyzed for multiple parameters and correlated with postoperative biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) progression. Variables included Gleason score, primary Gleason pattern, percentage of Gleason pattern 4, any presence of Gleason pattern 5, method of seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), margin positivity, SVI extent, SVI bilaterality, vascular invasion, extent of extraprostatic extension, length of tumor extending along the seminal vesicles, presence of intraductal carcinoma within the prostate, bladder neck margin positivity, and tumor volume. RESULTS: We were able to stratify the prognosis based on the combination of a variation of the Gleason score and margin status and vascular invasion status. Using this stratification, a few patients had an excellent long-term prognosis, with most patients split into two groups, one experiencing rapid and the other slower progression. CONCLUSIONS: SVI is not associated with a uniformly poor prognosis. Rather, tumors can be substratified by pathologic parameters into groups with differing prognoses based on routine histologic examination.
Authors: Athanase Billis; Daniel A Teixeira; Rafael F Stelini; Maísa M Quintal; Marbele S Guimarães; Ubirajara Ferreira Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: David S Yee; Shahrokh F Shariat; William T Lowrance; Alexandra C Maschino; Caroline J Savage; Angel M Cronin; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Aurélien Forgues; François Rozet; François Audenet; Adil Ouzzane; Rafaël Sanchez-Salas; Eric Barret; Marc Galiano; Dominique Prapotnich; Xavier Cathelineau Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Phillip M Pierorazio; Ashley E Ross; Edward M Schaeffer; Jonathan I Epstein; Misop Han; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jeremy B Burton; Mai Johnson; Makoto Sato; Sok Boon S Koh; David J Mulholland; David Stout; Arion F Chatziioannou; Michael E Phelps; Hong Wu; Lily Wu Journal: Nat Med Date: 2008-07-11 Impact factor: 53.440