Literature DB >> 20602821

Undergrading and understaging in patients with clinically insignificant prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy.

Irai S Oliveira1, Jose Pontes-Junior, Daniel K Abe, Alexandre Crippa, Marcos F Dall'oglio, Adriano J Nesralah, Katia R M Leite, Sabrina T Reis, Miguel Srougi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of our study is to evaluate the undergrading and understaging rates in patients with clinically localized insignificant prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 2005 and July 2008, 406 patients underwent radical prostatectomy for clinical localized prostate cancer in our hospital. Based on preoperative data, 93 of these patients fulfilled our criteria of non-significance: Gleason score < 7, stage T1c, PSA < 10 ng/mL and percentage of affected fragments less than 25%. The pathologic stage and Gleason score were compared to preoperative data to evaluate the rate of understaging and undergrading. The biochemical recurrence free survival of these operated insignificant cancers were also evaluated.
RESULTS: On surgical specimen analysis 74.7% of patients had Gleason score of 6 or less and 25.3% had Gleason 7 or greater. Furthermore 8.3% of cases showed extracapsular extension. After 36 months of follow-up 3.4% had biochemical recurrence, defined by a PSA above 0.4 ng/mL.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited number of cases, we have found considerable rates of undergrading and understaging in patients with prostate cancer whose current definitions classified them as candidates for active surveillance. According to our results the current definition seems inadequate as up to a third of patients had higher grade or cancer outside the prostate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20602821     DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382010000300005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Braz J Urol        ISSN: 1677-5538            Impact factor:   1.541


  5 in total

Review 1.  Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: background, patient selection, triggers for intervention, and outcomes.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy plus extended lymph nodes dissection for cases with non-extra node metastatic prostate cancer: 5-year experience in a single Chinese institution.

Authors:  Ming-Kun Chen; Yun Luo; Hao Zhang; Jiang-Guang Qiu; Xin-Qiao Wen; Jun Pang; Jie Si-Tu; Qi-Peng Sun; Xin Gao
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-02-16       Impact factor: 4.553

3.  High risk of under-grading and -staging in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance.

Authors:  Isabel Heidegger; Viktor Skradski; Eberhard Steiner; Helmut Klocker; Renate Pichler; Andreas Pircher; Wolfgang Horninger; Jasmin Bektic
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The cost-utility of open prostatectomy compared with active surveillance in early localised prostate cancer.

Authors:  Florian Koerber; Raphaela Waidelich; Björn Stollenwerk; Wolf Rogowski
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Diagnostic performance of 68Gallium-PSMA-11 PET/CT to detect significant prostate cancer and comparison with 18FEC PET/CT.

Authors:  Manuela A Hoffmann; Matthias Miederer; Helmut J Wieler; Christian Ruf; Frank M Jakobs; Mathias Schreckenberger
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-11-14
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.