PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients with prostate cancer who have pathological pT3b N0-Nx, with postoperative PSA < 0.1 ng/ml and no systematic adjuvant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a monocentric prospectively maintained database, we identified among 2,142 men who underwent minimally invasive radical prostatectomy, 104 pT3b N0-Nx patients, with postoperative PSA < 0.1 ng/ml and at least 5 years of follow-up. Patients were considered for salvage treatment at biochemical recurrence (PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/ml). RESULTS: The median time of follow-up was 83.5 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 69-99). Overall, 102 patients (98 %) had T2 clinical stage or less. Specimen Gleason score was 7 in 71 patients (68 %) and <7 in 15 (14 %). Thirty-eight patients (37 %) were upgraded for Gleason score after radical prostatectomy. The overall 5-year probability of freedom from biochemical recurrence for the entire cohort was 55.8 % (95 % CI 45.8-65.8) and 73.3 % for patients who had specimen Gleason score <7 (p = 0.005). In univariate analysis, specimen Gleason score and surgical margin status were significant predictors for biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy (p = 0.05 and 0.007, respectively). In multivariate analysis, only specimen Gleason score >7 was significantly associated with biochemical failure (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: SVI is an adverse prognostic factor, but it is not associated with a uniformly poor prognosis. Specimen Gleason score and surgical margin status are significant predictors of recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer and SVI.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients with prostate cancer who have pathological pT3b N0-Nx, with postoperative PSA < 0.1 ng/ml and no systematic adjuvant treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a monocentric prospectively maintained database, we identified among 2,142 men who underwent minimally invasive radical prostatectomy, 104 pT3b N0-Nx patients, with postoperative PSA < 0.1 ng/ml and at least 5 years of follow-up. Patients were considered for salvage treatment at biochemical recurrence (PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/ml). RESULTS: The median time of follow-up was 83.5 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 69-99). Overall, 102 patients (98 %) had T2 clinical stage or less. Specimen Gleason score was 7 in 71 patients (68 %) and <7 in 15 (14 %). Thirty-eight patients (37 %) were upgraded for Gleason score after radical prostatectomy. The overall 5-year probability of freedom from biochemical recurrence for the entire cohort was 55.8 % (95 % CI 45.8-65.8) and 73.3 % for patients who had specimen Gleason score <7 (p = 0.005). In univariate analysis, specimen Gleason score and surgical margin status were significant predictors for biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy (p = 0.05 and 0.007, respectively). In multivariate analysis, only specimen Gleason score >7 was significantly associated with biochemical failure (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: SVI is an adverse prognostic factor, but it is not associated with a uniformly poor prognosis. Specimen Gleason score and surgical margin status are significant predictors of recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer and SVI.
Authors: Lars Budäus; Hendrik Isbarn; Christian Eichelberg; Giovanni Lughezzani; Maxine Sun; Paul Perrotte; Felix K H Chun; Georg Salomon; Thomas Steuber; Jens Köllermann; Guido Sauter; Sascha A Ahyai; Mario Zacharias; Margit Fisch; Thorsten Schlomm; Alexander Haese; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Francesco Montorsi; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sameer A Siddiqui; Stephen A Boorjian; Michael L Blute; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Robert Jeffrey Karnes; Igor Frank Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Cyrille Bastide; Dominique Rossi; Eric Lechevallier; Franck Bladou; David Barriol; Denis Bretheau; Vincent Grisoni; Julien Mancini; Sophie Giusiano; Christophe Eghazarian; Antoine Van Hove Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Tanya B Dorff; Thomas W Flaig; Catherine M Tangen; Maha H A Hussain; Gregory P Swanson; David P Wood; Wael A Sakr; Nancy A Dawson; Naomi B Haas; E David Crawford; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Ian M Thompson; L Michael Glode Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laurent Salomon; Aristotelis G Anastasiadis; Christopher W Johnson; James M McKiernan; Erik T Goluboff; Claude C Abbou; Carl A Olsson; Mitchell C Benson Journal: Urology Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Thomas Wiegel; Dirk Bottke; Ursula Steiner; Alessandra Siegmann; Reinhard Golz; Stephan Störkel; Norman Willich; Axel Semjonow; Rainer Souchon; Michael Stöckle; Christian Rübe; Lothar Weissbach; Peter Althaus; Udo Rebmann; Tilman Kälble; Horst Jürgen Feldmann; Manfred Wirth; Axel Hinke; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Kurt Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xianghong Zhou; Shi Qiu; Kun Jin; Qiming Yuan; Di Jin; Zilong Zhang; Xiaonan Zheng; Jiakun Li; Qiang Wei; Lu Yang Journal: Front Surg Date: 2021-11-26
Authors: Natalia Vidal Crespo; Laura Enguita Arnal; Álvaro Gómez-Ferrer; Argimiro Collado Serra; Juan Manuel Mascarós; Ana Calatrava Fons; Juan Casanova Ramón-Borja; José Rubio Briones; Miguel Ramírez-Backhaus Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 2.948