Markos Karavitakis1, Hashim U Ahmed, Paul D Abel, Steven Hazell, Mathias H Winkler. 1. Department of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK and Department of Urology, "St. Panteleimon" General Hospital of Nikaia, Peiraeus, Greece Kinikiou 30, 18450, Nikea, Piraeus, Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Since tumor focality in prostate cancer continues to be considered a major limitation for focal prostate therapy, in this study we attempted to compare the pathological features and the proportion of patients with anatomically unifocal versus biologically unifocal tumors (i.e. multifocal prostate cancer in which the secondary nonindex elements are small, low grade and clinically insignificant) who were suitable for focal therapy. METHODS: Ninety-five consecutive whole mount laparoscopic radical prostatectomy samples underwent pathological assessment (from January 2007 to November 2009). Tumor focality, laterality, Gleason score and volume of individual foci, total tumor volume, pathological stage and surgical margin status were assessed. The index lesion was defined as the largest by volume. Patients suitable for focal ablation were defined as having tumors that were unifocal, organ confined, with a Gleason score (GS) up to 7 prostate cancer, or multifocal, organ confined, GS up to 7 prostate cancer, with one large index lesion and the remaining foci demonstrating features of clinically insignificant disease (total tumor volume of all secondary foci ≤0.5 cm(3) with GS ≤ 6). RESULTS: Patients with biologically unifocal cancer had significantly lower total tumor volume (3.26 versus 7.28 cm(3); p < 0.001), index lesion volume (2.9 versus 7.16 cm(3); p < 0.001), rates of seminal vesicle invasion (4% versus 34%; p < 0.001), rates of positive surgical margins (22.4% versus 52.1%; p < 0.001) and rates of 4+3 GS tumors (10.2% versus 29.1%; p = 0.018). The proportion of patients suitable for focal therapy was higher in the biologically unifocal versus anatomically unifocal cancer group, although without reaching statistical significance (65.3% versus 45.8%; p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with biologically unifocal tumors have better pathological outcome than those with anatomically unifocal disease. At present the assumption that multifocality should a priori exclude patients from any organ-preserving prostate cancer treatment is only theoretical and needs to be validated by future clinical trials since there are a large proportion of patients with multifocal disease apparently suitable for focal prostate therapy.
OBJECTIVES: Since tumor focality in prostate cancer continues to be considered a major limitation for focal prostate therapy, in this study we attempted to compare the pathological features and the proportion of patients with anatomically unifocal versus biologically unifocal tumors (i.e. multifocal prostate cancer in which the secondary nonindex elements are small, low grade and clinically insignificant) who were suitable for focal therapy. METHODS: Ninety-five consecutive whole mount laparoscopic radical prostatectomy samples underwent pathological assessment (from January 2007 to November 2009). Tumor focality, laterality, Gleason score and volume of individual foci, total tumor volume, pathological stage and surgical margin status were assessed. The index lesion was defined as the largest by volume. Patients suitable for focal ablation were defined as having tumors that were unifocal, organ confined, with a Gleason score (GS) up to 7prostate cancer, or multifocal, organ confined, GS up to 7prostate cancer, with one large index lesion and the remaining foci demonstrating features of clinically insignificant disease (total tumor volume of all secondary foci ≤0.5 cm(3) with GS ≤ 6). RESULTS:Patients with biologically unifocal cancer had significantly lower total tumor volume (3.26 versus 7.28 cm(3); p < 0.001), index lesion volume (2.9 versus 7.16 cm(3); p < 0.001), rates of seminal vesicle invasion (4% versus 34%; p < 0.001), rates of positive surgical margins (22.4% versus 52.1%; p < 0.001) and rates of 4+3 GS tumors (10.2% versus 29.1%; p = 0.018). The proportion of patients suitable for focal therapy was higher in the biologically unifocal versus anatomically unifocal cancer group, although without reaching statistical significance (65.3% versus 45.8%; p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with biologically unifocal tumors have better pathological outcome than those with anatomically unifocal disease. At present the assumption that multifocality should a priori exclude patients from any organ-preserving prostate cancer treatment is only theoretical and needs to be validated by future clinical trials since there are a large proportion of patients with multifocal disease apparently suitable for focal prostate therapy.
Entities:
Keywords:
focal therapy; index lesion ablation; prostate cancer
Authors: David G Bostwick; David J Waters; Edward R Farley; Isabelle Meiers; Daniel Rukstalis; William A Cavanaugh; Haakon Ragde; Martin K Dineen; Duke Bahn; Stephen Scionti; Richard Babian; David S Ellis; John C Rewcastle; Harry B Burke; Gerald L Andriole; Gary Onik; Al E Barqawi; John Maksem; Winston E Barzell Journal: Urology Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: E T Ruijter; G J Miller; C A van de Kaa; A van Bokhoven; M J Bussemakers; F M Debruyne; D J Ruiter; J A Schalken Journal: J Pathol Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Simon R J Bott; Hashim U Ahmed; Richard G Hindley; Ahmad Abdul-Rahman; Alex Freeman; Mark Emberton Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Konstantinos N Stamatiou; Giorgio C Dilernia; Georgios K Ilias; Georgios K Daskalopoulos; Ioannis K Koutelekos; Soultana N Marianou; Frank A Sofras Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2009-02
Authors: Hashim Uddin Ahmed; Doug Pendse; Rowland Illing; Clare Allen; Jan H P van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Nat Clin Pract Oncol Date: 2007-11
Authors: Scott A Tomlins; Ronglai Shen; Francesca Demichelis; Mark A Rubin; Joanna Cyrta; Davide Prandi; Arshi Arora; Daniel H Hovelson; Andrea Sboner; Antonio Rodriguez; Tarcisio Fedrizzi; Himisha Beltran; Dan R Robinson; Anuradha Gopalan; Lawrence True; Peter S Nelson; Brian D Robinson; Juan Miguel Mosquera Journal: J Pathol Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 9.883
Authors: Massimo Valerio; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Massimo Lazzeri; Rodolfo Montironi; Paul L Nguyen; John Trachtenberg; Thomas J Polascik Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 20.096