Vignesh T Packiam1, Sanjay G Patel2, Joseph J Pariser2, Kyle A Richards3, Adam B Weiner4, Gladell P Paner5, David J VanderWeele6, Gregory P Zagaja2, Scott E Eggener2. 1. Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: vignesh.packiam@uchospitals.edu. 2. Section of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 3. Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 4. Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 5. Department of Pathology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare pathological characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma (DC) compared to those with acinar adenocarcinoma (AC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients diagnosed with clinically localized (cN0, cM0) pure DC (n = 1328) and AC (n = 751,635) between 1998 and 2011. High-risk AC was defined as Gleason 8-10. Demographic, treatment, pathological, and survival characteristics of patients were compared. RESULTS: Compared to patients with Gleason 8-10 AC, those with DC presented with lower mean prostate-specific antigen (10.3 vs 16.2 ng/mL, P <.001), had similar rates (11.7% vs 11.5%, P = .8) of clinical extra-capsular extension (stage ≥ cT3), and were more likely to undergo prostatectomy (54% vs 36%, P <.001). Compared to patients with Gleason 8-10 AC undergoing prostatectomy, those with DC had more favorable pathology: stage ≥ T3 (39% vs 52%, P <.001), fewer positive lymph nodes (4% vs 11%, P <.001), and fewer positive margins (25% vs 33%, P <.001). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients with DC had similar 5-year survival (75.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [71.7-78.9]) compared to those with Gleason 8-10 AC (77.1%, 95% CI [76.6%-77.6%], P = .2). On Cox multivariable analysis, patients with Gleason 8-10 AC had a similar risk of death compared to those with DC (hazards ratio = 0.92, 95% CI [0.69-1.23], P = 6). CONCLUSION: In this large contemporary population-based series, patients with DC of the prostate presented with lower prostate-specific antigen, had more favorable pathological features, and similar overall survival compared to men with Gleason 8-10 AC.
OBJECTIVE: To compare pathological characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma (DC) compared to those with acinar adenocarcinoma (AC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients diagnosed with clinically localized (cN0, cM0) pure DC (n = 1328) and AC (n = 751,635) between 1998 and 2011. High-risk AC was defined as Gleason 8-10. Demographic, treatment, pathological, and survival characteristics of patients were compared. RESULTS: Compared to patients with Gleason 8-10 AC, those with DC presented with lower mean prostate-specific antigen (10.3 vs 16.2 ng/mL, P <.001), had similar rates (11.7% vs 11.5%, P = .8) of clinical extra-capsular extension (stage ≥ cT3), and were more likely to undergo prostatectomy (54% vs 36%, P <.001). Compared to patients with Gleason 8-10 AC undergoing prostatectomy, those with DC had more favorable pathology: stage ≥ T3 (39% vs 52%, P <.001), fewer positive lymph nodes (4% vs 11%, P <.001), and fewer positive margins (25% vs 33%, P <.001). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, patients with DC had similar 5-year survival (75.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [71.7-78.9]) compared to those with Gleason 8-10 AC (77.1%, 95% CI [76.6%-77.6%], P = .2). On Cox multivariable analysis, patients with Gleason 8-10 AC had a similar risk of death compared to those with DC (hazards ratio = 0.92, 95% CI [0.69-1.23], P = 6). CONCLUSION: In this large contemporary population-based series, patients with DC of the prostate presented with lower prostate-specific antigen, had more favorable pathological features, and similar overall survival compared to men with Gleason 8-10 AC.
Authors: Marc Gillard; Justin Lack; Andrea Pontier; Divya Gandla; David Hatcher; Adam G Sowalsky; Jose Rodriguez-Nieves; Donald Vander Griend; Gladell Paner; David VanderWeele Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-12-08
Authors: Francesco Chierigo; Marco Borghesi; Christoph Würnschimmel; Rocco Simone Flammia; Benedikt Horlemann; Gabriele Sorce; Benedikt Höh; Zhe Tian; Fred Saad; Markus Graefen; Michele Gallucci; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Felix K H Chun; Shahrokh F Shariat; Guglielmo Mantica; Nazareno Suardi; Carlo Terrone; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Nithesh Ranasinha; Altan Omer; Yiannis Philippou; Eli Harriss; Lucy Davies; Ken Chow; Paolo M Chetta; Andrew Erickson; Timothy Rajakumar; Ian G Mills; Richard J Bryant; Freddie C Hamdy; Declan G Murphy; Massimo Loda; Christopher M Hovens; Niall M Corcoran; Clare Verrill; Alastair D Lamb Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-01-05
Authors: Weranja Ranasinghe; Daniel D Shapiro; Miao Zhang; Tharakeswara Bathala; Nora Navone; Timothy C Thompson; Bradley Broom; Ana Aparicio; Shi-Ming Tu; Chad Tang; John W Davis; Louis Pisters; Brian F Chapin Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 14.432