Sung Kyu Hong1, Bing Ying Poon2, Daniel D Sjoberg2, Peter T Scardino3, James A Eastham3. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. Electronic address: skhong@snubh.org. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 3. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; Department of Urology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between prostate volume measured from preoperative imaging and adverse pathologic features at the time of radical prostatectomy and evaluate the potential effect of clinical stage on such relationship. METHODS: In 1756 men who underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and radical prostatectomy from 2000 to 2010, we examined associations of magnetic resonance imaging-measured prostate volume with pathologic outcomes using univariate logistic regression and with postoperative biochemical recurrence using Cox proportional hazards models. We also analyzed the effects of clinical stage on the relationship between prostate volume and adverse pathologic features via interaction analyses. RESULTS: In univariate analyses, smaller prostate volume was significantly associated with high pathologic Gleason score (P<.0001), extracapsular extension (P<.0001), and positive surgical margins (P=.032). No significant interaction between clinical stage and prostate volume was observed in predicting adverse pathologic features (all P>.05). The association between prostate volume and recurrence was significant in a multivariable analysis adjusting for postoperative variables (P=.031) but missed statistical significance in the preoperative model (P=.053). Addition of prostate volume did not change C-Indices (0.78 and 0.83) of either model. CONCLUSION: Although prostate size did not enhance the prediction of recurrence, it is associated with aggressiveness of prostate cancer. There is no evidence that this association differs depending on clinical stage. Prospective studies are warranted assessing the effect of initial method of detection on the relationship between volume and outcome.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between prostate volume measured from preoperative imaging and adverse pathologic features at the time of radical prostatectomy and evaluate the potential effect of clinical stage on such relationship. METHODS: In 1756 men who underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and radical prostatectomy from 2000 to 2010, we examined associations of magnetic resonance imaging-measured prostate volume with pathologic outcomes using univariate logistic regression and with postoperative biochemical recurrence using Cox proportional hazards models. We also analyzed the effects of clinical stage on the relationship between prostate volume and adverse pathologic features via interaction analyses. RESULTS: In univariate analyses, smaller prostate volume was significantly associated with high pathologic Gleason score (P<.0001), extracapsular extension (P<.0001), and positive surgical margins (P=.032). No significant interaction between clinical stage and prostate volume was observed in predicting adverse pathologic features (all P>.05). The association between prostate volume and recurrence was significant in a multivariable analysis adjusting for postoperative variables (P=.031) but missed statistical significance in the preoperative model (P=.053). Addition of prostate volume did not change C-Indices (0.78 and 0.83) of either model. CONCLUSION: Although prostate size did not enhance the prediction of recurrence, it is associated with aggressiveness of prostate cancer. There is no evidence that this association differs depending on clinical stage. Prospective studies are warranted assessing the effect of initial method of detection on the relationship between volume and outcome.
Authors: Girish S Kulkarni; Rami Al-Azab; Gina Lockwood; Ants Toi; Andrew Evans; John Trachtenberg; Michael A S Jewett; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fernando J Bianco; Kozhaya N Mallah; Ruslan Korets; Hedvig Hricak; Peter T Scardino; Michael W Kattan Journal: Urology Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Alberto Briganti; Felix K-H Chun; Nazareno Suardi; Andrea Gallina; Jochen Walz; Markus Graefen; Shahrokh Shariat; Andreas Ebersdobler; Patrizio Rigatti; Paul Perrotte; Fred Saad; Francesco Montorsi; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Girish S Kulkarni; Gina Lockwood; Andrew Evans; Ants Toi; John Trachtenberg; Michael A S Jewett; Antonio Finelli; Neil E Fleshner Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hendrik Isbarn; Jehonathan H Pinthus; Leonard S Marks; Francesco Montorsi; Alvaro Morales; Abraham Morgentaler; Claude Schulman Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-04-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sung Kyu Hong; Emily Vertosick; Daniel D Sjoberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-09-27 Impact factor: 4.226
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