Literature DB >> 25284155

Tumor volume in insignificant prostate cancer: increasing threshold gains increasing risk.

Jonas Schiffmann1, Judith Connan, Georg Salomon, Katharina Boehm, Burkhard Beyer, Thorsten Schlomm, Pierre Tennstedt, Guido Sauter, Pierre I Karakiewicz, Markus Graefen, Hartwig Huland.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An increased tumor volume threshold (<2.5 ml) is suggested to define insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa). We hypothesize that an increasing tumor volume within iPCa patients increases the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP).
METHODS: We relied on RP patients treated between 1992 and 2008. Multivariable Cox regression analyses predicting BCR within patients harboring favorable pathological characteristics (≤pT2, pN0/Nx, Gleason 3 + 3). Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for BCR-free survival within iPCa patients (≤pT2, pN0/Nx, Gleason 3 + 3, tumor volume: <0.5 vs. 0.5-2.49 ml).
RESULTS: From 1,829 patients, 141 (7.7%) and 310 (16.9%) harbored iPCa (tumor volume: <0.5 vs. 0.5-2.49 ml), respectively. Of those, 21 (14.9%) versus 31 (10.0%) had PSA >10 ng/ml. Tumor volume achieved independent predictor status for BCR. Specifically, iPCa patients with increasing tumor volume (0.5-2.49 ml) were at higher risk of BCR after RP than those with tumor volume <0.5 ml (HR: 8.8, 95% CI: 1.2-65.9, P = 0.04). Kaplan-Meier analysis recorded superior BCR-free survival in iPCa patients with lower tumor volume (<0.5 ml) (log-rank P = 0.009). The 10-year cancer-specific death rate was 0 versus 0.5%.
CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary iPCa definition incorporates intermediate and high-risk patients (PSA: 10-20 and >20 ng/ml). Despite most favorable pathological characteristics, iPCa patients are not devoid of BCR after RP. Moreover, iPCa patients were at higher risk of BCR, when increasing tumor volume up to 2.49 ml was at play. Taken together the contemporary concept of iPCa is suboptimal. Especially, an increased tumor volume threshold for defining iPCa cannot be recommended according to our data. Clinicians might take these considerations into account during decision-making process.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biochemical recurrence; insignificant prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy; tumor volume

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25284155     DOI: 10.1002/pros.22889

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate        ISSN: 0270-4137            Impact factor:   4.104


  6 in total

1.  True targeting-derived prostate biopsy: HistoScanning™ remained inadequate despite advanced technical efforts.

Authors:  Jonas Schiffmann; Gisa Mehring; Pierre Tennstedt; Lukas Manka; Katharina Boehm; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter Hammerer; Markus Graefen; Georg Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Do tumor volume, percent tumor volume predict biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yang Meng; He Li; Peng Xu; Jia Wang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-12-15

3.  Predicting Gleason Group Progression for Men on Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance: Role of a Negative Confirmatory Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy.

Authors:  Jonathan B Bloom; Graham R Hale; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Clayton Smith; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Prostate cancer: Is prostatectomy for Gleason score 6 a treatment failure?

Authors:  Theodorus H van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 5.  Does true Gleason pattern 3 merit its cancer descriptor?

Authors:  Saiful Miah; Hashim U Ahmed; Alex Freeman; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 6.  Controversial evidence for the use of HistoScanning™ in the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jonas Schiffmann; Lukas Manka; Katharina Boehm; Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Markus Graefen; Peter Hammerer; Georg Salomon
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 4.226

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.