OBJECTIVES: To identify predictive factors of unfavorable disease and of biochemical failure in patients treated with radical prostatectomy but eligible for active surveillance (AS) according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria. We aimed to introduce and validate the percentage of cancer involvement in positive cores (CIPC) as potential worse predictive factor. METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2007, 750 consecutive subjects underwent radical prostatectomy at a single institution. We identified 147 (19.05%) patients who were eligible for AS based on PRIAS criteria: clinical stage T1c or T2 disease, prostate-specific antigen level of ≤ 10 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤ 6, prostate-specific antigen-D of<0.2 ng/ml(2), and fewer than 3 positive biopsy cores. CIPC was included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 147 patients, 95 (66.43%) patients had favorable disease, whereas 48 (33.57%) had unfavorable disease. In multivariate logistic regression, maximum cancer length (odds ratio 12.52, P<0.01) and CIPC (odds ratio 1.70, P<0.01) represented independent predictors of unfavorable prostate cancer. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis revealed significantly higher performance after including CIPC to the PRIAS criteria (0.61 vs. 0.94, P<0.01). A cutoff of 0.4mm of CIPC was set to predict unfavorable disease with 93% specificity, 76% sensibility, and 87% accuracy based on the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. Finally, the 3- and 5-years biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival were significantly lower in subjects with CIPC ≥ 0.4mm, 88.4 % and 81.0% vs. 97.8% and 95.7%, respectively (P< 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the inclusion of CIPC to the prostate biopsy features could be helpful to avoid misclassification in patients eligible for AS according to the PRIAS criteria.
OBJECTIVES: To identify predictive factors of unfavorable disease and of biochemical failure in patients treated with radical prostatectomy but eligible for active surveillance (AS) according to Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS) criteria. We aimed to introduce and validate the percentage of cancer involvement in positive cores (CIPC) as potential worse predictive factor. METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2007, 750 consecutive subjects underwent radical prostatectomy at a single institution. We identified 147 (19.05%) patients who were eligible for AS based on PRIAS criteria: clinical stage T1c or T2 disease, prostate-specific antigen level of ≤ 10 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤ 6, prostate-specific antigen-D of<0.2 ng/ml(2), and fewer than 3 positive biopsy cores. CIPC was included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 147 patients, 95 (66.43%) patients had favorable disease, whereas 48 (33.57%) had unfavorable disease. In multivariate logistic regression, maximum cancer length (odds ratio 12.52, P<0.01) and CIPC (odds ratio 1.70, P<0.01) represented independent predictors of unfavorable prostate cancer. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis revealed significantly higher performance after including CIPC to the PRIAS criteria (0.61 vs. 0.94, P<0.01). A cutoff of 0.4mm of CIPC was set to predict unfavorable disease with 93% specificity, 76% sensibility, and 87% accuracy based on the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. Finally, the 3- and 5-years biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival were significantly lower in subjects with CIPC ≥ 0.4mm, 88.4 % and 81.0% vs. 97.8% and 95.7%, respectively (P< 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the inclusion of CIPC to the prostate biopsy features could be helpful to avoid misclassification in patients eligible for AS according to the PRIAS criteria.
Authors: G I Russo; T Castelli; V Favilla; G Reale; D Urzì; S Privitera; E Fragalà; S Cimino; G Morgia Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Vincenzo Favilla; Giorgio Ivan Russo; Fabio Spitaleri; Daniele Urzì; Marco Garau; Massimo Madonia; Alberto Saita; Furio Pirozzi Farina; Sandro La Vignera; Rosita Condorelli; Aldo E Calogero; Sebastiano Cimino; Giuseppe Morgia Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Kathleen F McGinley; Xizi Sun; Lauren E Howard; William J Aronson; Martha K Terris; Christopher J Kane; Christopher L Amling; Matthew R Cooperberg; Stephen J Freedland Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Vitor da Silva; Ilias Cagiannos; Luke T Lavallée; Ranjeeta Mallick; Kelsey Witiuk; Sonya Cnossen; James A Eastham; Dean A Fergusson; Chris Morash; Rodney H Breau Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: R Schiavina; M Borghesi; E Brunocilla; D Romagnoli; D Diazzi; F Giunchi; V Vagnoni; C V Pultrone; H Dababneh; A Porreca; M Fiorentino; G Martorana Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Lukasz Nyk; Tomasz Golabek; Jakub Dobruch; Michał Andrzej Skrzypczyk; Tomasz Dzik; Maciej Wysocki; Piotr L Chłosta; Andrzej Borówka Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2014-08-18