Literature DB >> 12930421

A large prostate at radical retropubic prostatectomy does not adversely affect cancer control, continence or potency rates.

C L Foley1, S R J Bott, K Thomas, M C Parkinson, R S Kirby.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a large prostate at radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) on the pathological outcome, biochemical recurrence rates, potency and continence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a database of 440 patients treated with RRP, retrospective information was obtained on prostate weights, patient and tumour characteristics, and follow-up. Potency and continence after RRP was obtained using a self-reported validated questionnaire. Patients with prostates of > 75 or < or = 75 g were compared.
RESULTS: The median (range) prostate size was 87 (76-182) and 42 (4.1-75) g in the two groups. The response rate to the questionnaire was 78% (344 men). Patients with prostates of > 75 g were older, with a median (range) age of 65 (51-74) years, than the other group, at 61 (40-76) years (P = 0.01), and had higher initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, at 9.6 (3.4-37.8) and 7.6 (0.1-30.0) ng/mL, respectively (P = 0.001). Tumours within larger prostates were of a lower stage (P = 0.035), lower Gleason grade (median 6 and 7, P = 0.015), of smaller volume (median 1.0, 0.1-12.4; and 1.5, 0.1-21.1 mL; P = 0.04) and more often 'clinically insignificant' (23% and 6%, P = 0.001). There was no difference in the number or distribution of positive surgical margins. For a limited median follow-up of 20-25 months, patients with prostates of > 75 g were less likely to have biochemical recurrence (5% vs 24%, P < 0.001). Potency and continence rates were similar between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate size at RRP does not affect the risk of impotence or incontinence afterward. A prostate of > 75 g is associated with a lower likelihood of PSA-relapse, potentially as a result of lead-time bias. While an enlarged prostate may contraindicate other potentially curative cancer treatments, the outcomes of RRP appear to be unaffected.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12930421     DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04361.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  10 in total

Review 1.  Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-term Quality of Life Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Vinay Prabhu; Ted Lee; Tyler R McClintock; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2013

2.  Does robotic technology mitigate the challenges of large prostate size?

Authors:  Ted A Skolarus; Ryan C Hedgepeth; Yun Zhang; Alon Z Weizer; Jeffrey S Montgomery; David C Miller; David P Wood; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-08-13       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Efficacy of Duloxetine in the Early Management of Urinary Continence after Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Cabir Alan; Ali E Eren; Ahmet R Ersay; Hasan Kocoglu; Gokhan Basturk; Emrah Demirci
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2015-05-20

4.  Impact of a preoperatively estimated prostate volume using transrectal ultrasonography on surgical and oncological outcomes in a single surgeon's experience with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Yosuke Hirasawa; Yoshio Ohno; Jun Nakashima; Kenji Shimodaira; Takeshi Hashimoto; Tatsuo Gondo; Makoto Ohori; Masaaki Tachibana; Kunihiko Yoshioka
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Prostate size is associated with surgical difficulty but not functional outcome at 1 year after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Joseph A Pettus; Timothy Masterson; Alexander Sokol; Angel M Cronin; Caroline Savage; Jaspreet S Sandhu; John P Mulhall; Peter T Scardino; Farhang Rabbani
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Tumor volume, tumor percentage involvement, or prostate volume: which is predictive of prostate-specific antigen recurrence?

Authors:  Matthew A Uhlman; Leon Sun; Danielle A Stackhouse; Arthur A Caire; Thomas J Polascik; Cary N Robertson; John Madden; Robin Vollmer; David M Albala; Judd W Moul
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  The association between prostate size and Gleason score upgrading depends on the number of biopsy cores obtained: results from the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital Database.

Authors:  Ryan S Turley; Martha K Terris; Christopher J Kane; William J Aronson; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-09-03       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Functional and Oncological Outcomes Following Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer With a Large Prostate Volume: A Retrospective Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Ups.

Authors:  Wen Deng; Xiaoqiang Liu; Weipeng Liu; Cheng Zhang; Xiaochen Zhou; Luyao Chen; Ju Guo; Gongxian Wang; Bin Fu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  Impact of prostate size on pathologic outcomes and prognosis after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sun Ho Min; Yong Hyun Park; Seung Bae Lee; Ja Hyeon Ku; Cheol Kwak; Hyeon Hoe Kim
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2012-07-19

10.  Does size matter? The significance of prostate size on pathologic and functional outcomes in patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Carl A Olsson; Hugh J Lavery; Dov Sebrow; Ardavan Akhavan; Adam W Levinson; Jonathan S Brajtbord; John Carlucci; Paul Muntner; David B Samadi
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2011-11-16
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.