Literature DB >> 20643423

Smaller prostate size predicts high grade prostate cancer at final pathology.

Mark R Newton1, Sharon Phillips, Sam S Chang, Peter E Clark, Michael S Cookson, Rodney Davis, Jay H Fowke, S Duke Herrell, Roxelyn Baumgartner, Robert Chan, Vineet Mishra, Jeffrey D Blume, Joseph A Smith, Daniel A Barocas.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Prostate size may influence the likelihood of detecting high grade prostate cancer at final pathology. We evaluated the association between prostate size and high grade (Gleason score 7 or greater) cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 2,880 patients who underwent surgical treatment of prostate cancer between January 2000 and June 2008. Prostate size measured at prostatectomy was compared across a strata of clinical variables (age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score, clinical stage and year of surgery) and pathological outcomes (final Gleason score, extraprostatic extension, positive surgical margin, seminal vesicle invasion and lymph node involvement). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess prostate size as a predictor of high grade cancer.
RESULTS: Older age, higher prostate specific antigen and later year of surgery were associated with larger gland size. Small prostate size was associated with high grade prostate cancer as well as extraprostatic extension and positive surgical margins on univariate and adjusted analysis. The probability of high grade disease decreased approximately 15% across the lowest vs highest prostate sizes. On multivariate analysis adjusted for age, race, prostate specific antigen, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score and date of surgery prostate size was an important predictor of high grade disease (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.92, 0.97 per 2 gm increments, p <0.001). The area under the ROC curve was 0.82 (95% CI 0.81, 0.84).
CONCLUSIONS: Prostate size was inversely associated with the risk of high grade cancer at final pathology. The ability to predict high grade disease could have implications for the management of prostate cancer. 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20643423     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.04.082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  13 in total

1.  The core of the matter: Using pathology instead of ultrasound to measure prostate volume.

Authors:  Selahattin Calışkan
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Computer simulations suggest that prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia mechanically impedes prostate cancer growth.

Authors:  Guillermo Lorenzo; Thomas J R Hughes; Pablo Dominguez-Frojan; Alessandro Reali; Hector Gomez
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Integration of MRI to clinical nomogram for predicting pathological stage before radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Cedric Lebacle; Françoise Roudot-Thoraval; Anissa Moktefi; Mohamed Bouanane; Alexandre De La Taille; Laurent Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Evaluating the size criterion for PI-RADSv2 category 5 upgrade: is 15 mm the best threshold?

Authors:  Julie Y An; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton P Smith; Julie A Peretti; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-12

5.  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

6.  Prostate size and adverse pathologic features in men undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Sung Kyu Hong; Bing Ying Poon; Daniel D Sjoberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Are hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasonography a marker for clinically significant prostate cancer?

Authors:  Tae Il Noh; Yoon Sun Shin; Ji Sung Shim; Jong Hyun Yoon; Jae Heon Kim; Jae Hyun Bae; Du Geon Moon; Jae Young Park
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2013-10-15

8.  The predictive efficacy of hypoechoic lesion in ultrasound for prostate cancer in Chinese people: five-year experience in a moderated 10-core transperineal prostate biopsy procedure.

Authors:  Tian Yang; Limin Zhang; Yixin Chen; Yehua Cai; Haowen Jiang; Qiang Ding
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-06-02

9.  Perineural invasion status, Gleason score and number of positive cores in biopsy pathology are predictors of positive surgical margin following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Rong Yang; Kai Cao; Tao Han; Yi-Feng Zhang; Gu-Tian Zhang; Lin-Feng Xu; Hui-Bo Lian; Xiao-Gong Li; Hong-Qian Guo
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.285

10.  Mechanism underlying the negative effect of prostate volume on the outcome of extensive transperineal ultrasound-guided template prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Takayoshi Demura; Takenori Takada; Naohiko Shimoda; Takaya Hioka; Yoshihumi Iwaguchi; Shin Ichihara; Hiroko Gotoda
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 4.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.