PURPOSE: We evaluated secondary cancers in the prostate in relation to predictions of pathological stage and prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 222 men with T1c (impalpable) prostate cancer and 6 or more systematic needle biopsies were matched with radical prostatectomy and classified into 3 groups according to tumor multifocality and secondary cancer volumes, including a single tumor in 54 (24%), an index (largest) tumor with secondary cancers less than 0.5 cc in 86 (39%) and an index tumor with secondary cancers greater than 0.5 cc in 82 (37%). Logistic analysis was used to predict adverse histological features. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to predict prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: There were no differences among the 3 groups with respect to preoperative serum PSA, number of positive cores, percent Gleason grade 4/5 cancer in the needle biopsy or histological features in radical prostatectomy specimens. On logistic analysis neither serum PSA nor pre-radical biopsy predicted adverse histological features in radical prostatectomy specimens. The Cox regression model showed that primary predictors of PSA failure were percent Gleason grade 4/5 cancer in the biopsy (HR = 2.6, p = 0.015) and prostatectomy (HR = 2.4, p = 0.04) specimens, and the number of positive cores (HR = 2.5, p = 0.04). When comparing PSA failure rates among the 3 groups, the multifocal group with smaller secondary cancers showed a better prognosis than the single tumor group (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary cancers in multifocal prostate tumors did not adversely influence the results of preoperative clinical parameters, including PSA and needle biopsy findings. Percent Gleason grade 4/5 cancer in needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens is the most powerful predictor of biochemical failure in men with stage T1c prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.
PURPOSE: We evaluated secondary cancers in the prostate in relation to predictions of pathological stage and prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 222 men with T1c (impalpable) prostate cancer and 6 or more systematic needle biopsies were matched with radical prostatectomy and classified into 3 groups according to tumor multifocality and secondary cancer volumes, including a single tumor in 54 (24%), an index (largest) tumor with secondary cancers less than 0.5 cc in 86 (39%) and an index tumor with secondary cancers greater than 0.5 cc in 82 (37%). Logistic analysis was used to predict adverse histological features. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to predict prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: There were no differences among the 3 groups with respect to preoperative serum PSA, number of positive cores, percent Gleason grade 4/5 cancer in the needle biopsy or histological features in radical prostatectomy specimens. On logistic analysis neither serum PSA nor pre-radical biopsy predicted adverse histological features in radical prostatectomy specimens. The Cox regression model showed that primary predictors of PSA failure were percent Gleason grade 4/5 cancer in the biopsy (HR = 2.6, p = 0.015) and prostatectomy (HR = 2.4, p = 0.04) specimens, and the number of positive cores (HR = 2.5, p = 0.04). When comparing PSA failure rates among the 3 groups, the multifocal group with smaller secondary cancers showed a better prognosis than the single tumor group (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary cancers in multifocal prostate tumors did not adversely influence the results of preoperative clinical parameters, including PSA and needle biopsy findings. Percent Gleason grade 4/5 cancer in needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens is the most powerful predictor of biochemical failure in men with stage T1c prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Henk van der Poel; Laurence Klotz; Gerald Andriole; Abdel-Rahmène Azzouzi; Anders Bjartell; Olivier Cussenot; Freddy Hamdy; Markus Graefen; Paolo Palma; Arturo Rodriguez Rivera; Christian G Stief Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Yujiro Ito; Emily A Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Hikmat A Al-Ahmadie; Ying-Bei Chen; Anuradha Gopalan; Sahussapont J Sirintrapun; Satish K Tickoo; James A Eastham; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Graham Sommer; Donna Bouley; Harcharan Gill; Bruce Daniel; Kim Butts Pauly; Chris Diederich Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: D Baumunk; A Blana; R Ganzer; T Henkel; J Köllermann; A Roosen; S Machtens; G Salomon; L Sentker; U Witzsch; K U Köhrmann; M Schostak Journal: Urologe A Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 0.639