BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of tumor is an important prognostic indicator that has an impact on long-term survival after radical prostatectomy. We investigated whether the prostate size has any association with the tumor volume and the incidence of EPE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred consecutive robot-assisted radical prostatectomy procedures performed by a single surgeon at a single center were studied. Preoperative parameters (demographic details, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, biopsy characteristics, and tumor volume) and the postoperative histopathologic details of the specimen (prostate volume, Gleason sum, EPE, and surgical margin status) were compared among the small prostate (< 40 cc), intermediate size (40-70 cc), and large prostate (> 70 cc) groups. Chi-square analysis was performed for comparison of groups with nominal variables while continuous variables were compared using analysis of variance. A double-sided P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A greater proportion of patients in the large prostate group had T(1c) tumor compared with those in the small prostate group (90.2% v 78.3%). Younger men and smaller prostates had lower preoperative PSA levels (P < 0.001). A significantly higher PSA density (0.16 v 0.07) and cancer density (0.0102 v 0.0025), however, was observed in patients with small prostates compared with those with large prostates. A total of 102 (14.6%) patients had EPE on the final pathologic analysis while 8.6% of the patients had positive surgical margins. Greater incidence of EPE was observed in the group with smaller prostates compared to those in the large prostate group (16.7% v 7.3%). CONCLUSION: Small prostates have a higher cancer density and a greater incidence of EPE of tumor.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of tumor is an important prognostic indicator that has an impact on long-term survival after radical prostatectomy. We investigated whether the prostate size has any association with the tumor volume and the incidence of EPE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred consecutive robot-assisted radical prostatectomy procedures performed by a single surgeon at a single center were studied. Preoperative parameters (demographic details, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, biopsy characteristics, and tumor volume) and the postoperative histopathologic details of the specimen (prostate volume, Gleason sum, EPE, and surgical margin status) were compared among the small prostate (< 40 cc), intermediate size (40-70 cc), and large prostate (> 70 cc) groups. Chi-square analysis was performed for comparison of groups with nominal variables while continuous variables were compared using analysis of variance. A double-sided P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A greater proportion of patients in the large prostate group had T(1c) tumor compared with those in the small prostate group (90.2% v 78.3%). Younger men and smaller prostates had lower preoperative PSA levels (P < 0.001). A significantly higher PSA density (0.16 v 0.07) and cancer density (0.0102 v 0.0025), however, was observed in patients with small prostates compared with those with large prostates. A total of 102 (14.6%) patients had EPE on the final pathologic analysis while 8.6% of the patients had positive surgical margins. Greater incidence of EPE was observed in the group with smaller prostates compared to those in the large prostate group (16.7% v 7.3%). CONCLUSION: Small prostates have a higher cancer density and a greater incidence of EPE of tumor.
Authors: Luke T Lavallée; Rodney H Breau; Mark A Preston; Gayanna Raju; Christopher Morash; Steve Doucette; Ronald G Gerridzen; James Eastham; Ilias Cagiannos Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 1.862
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
Authors: Julianna Padavano; Lynn Shaffer; Elizabeth Fannin; John Burgers; Wayne Poll; Eric S Ward; Kevin Banks; Jeffrey G Bell Journal: JSLS Date: 2011 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: In-Chang Cho; Whi-An Kwon; Jeong Eun Kim; Jae Young Joung; Ho Kyung Seo; Jinsoo Chung; Weon Seo Park; Kang Hyun Lee Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 2.153