Ofer Yossepowitch1, James A Eastham. 1. Department of Urology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tikva, 49726, Israel. oferyoss@netvision.net.il
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Consensus recommendations for the identification and treatment of men whose apparent organ confined prostate cancer has high risk features are lacking. Despite ongoing refinements in surgical technique and improvements in morbidity and functional outcomes, the tradition of steering high-risk patients away from radical prostatectomy (RP) remains steadfast. METHODS: We performed a medical literature search in English using MEDLINE/PubMed that addressed high risk prostate cancer. We analyzed the literature with respect to the historical evolution of this concept, current risk stratification schemes and treatment guidelines and related short and long term outcomes following RP. RESULTS: Contemporary evidence suggest that patients classified with high-risk prostate cancer by commonly used definitions do not have a uniformly poor prognosis after RP. Many cancers categorized clinically as high risk are actually pathologically confined to the prostate, and most men with such cancers who undergo RP are alive and free of additional therapy long after surgery. RP in the high-risk setting appears to be associated with a similar morbidity as in lower-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Men with clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer should not be categorically disqualified from local definitive therapy with RP. With careful attention to surgical technique, cancer control rates should improve further, and adverse effects on quality of life after RP should continue to decrease.
OBJECTIVES: Consensus recommendations for the identification and treatment of men whose apparent organ confined prostate cancer has high risk features are lacking. Despite ongoing refinements in surgical technique and improvements in morbidity and functional outcomes, the tradition of steering high-risk patients away from radical prostatectomy (RP) remains steadfast. METHODS: We performed a medical literature search in English using MEDLINE/PubMed that addressed high risk prostate cancer. We analyzed the literature with respect to the historical evolution of this concept, current risk stratification schemes and treatment guidelines and related short and long term outcomes following RP. RESULTS: Contemporary evidence suggest that patients classified with high-risk prostate cancer by commonly used definitions do not have a uniformly poor prognosis after RP. Many cancers categorized clinically as high risk are actually pathologically confined to the prostate, and most men with such cancers who undergo RP are alive and free of additional therapy long after surgery. RP in the high-risk setting appears to be associated with a similar morbidity as in lower-risk patients. CONCLUSION:Men with clinically localized high-risk prostate cancer should not be categorically disqualified from local definitive therapy with RP. With careful attention to surgical technique, cancer control rates should improve further, and adverse effects on quality of life after RP should continue to decrease.
Authors: Jeffery W Saranchuk; Michael W Kattan; Elena Elkin; A Karim Touijer; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ian Thompson; James Brantley Thrasher; Gunnar Aus; Arthur L Burnett; Edith D Canby-Hagino; Michael S Cookson; Anthony V D'Amico; Roger R Dmochowski; David T Eton; Jeffrey D Forman; S Larry Goldenberg; Javier Hernandez; Celestia S Higano; Stephen R Kraus; Judd W Moul; Catherine M Tangen Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stephen J Freedland; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Mario Eisenberger; Frederick J Dorey; Patrick C Walsh; Alan W Partin Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Henry K Tsai; Ming-Hui Chen; David G McLeod; Peter R Carroll; Jerome P Richie; Anthony V D'Amico Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christopher J Kane; Joseph C Presti; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Stephen J Freedland Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ofer Yossepowitch; Scott E Eggener; Angel M Serio; Brett S Carver; Fernando J Bianco; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-10-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: James A Eastham; Elyn Riedel; Peter T Scardino; Moshe Shike; Martin Fleisher; Arthur Schatzkin; Elaine Lanza; Lianne Latkany; Colin B Begg Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dong Soo Park; In Hyuck Gong; Don Kyung Choi; Jin Ho Hwang; Hyun Soo Shin; Jong Jin Oh Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.759