A Pichon1, Y Neuzillet1, H Botto1, J-P Raynaud2, C Radulescu3, V Molinié4, J-M Herve1, T Lebret1. 1. Department of Urology, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France. 2. Department of Physiology, University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris, France. 3. Department of Pathology, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France. 4. Department of Pathology, CHU de Fort-de-France, Fort-de-France, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare histological feature of prostate cancer (PCa) according androgenic status in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Between March 2007 and September 2013, we prospectively analysed 937 patients who were referred to our centre for RP. Clinical, pathological and biological data have been prospectively collected. Preoperative total testosterone (TT) and bioavailable testosterone (BT) serum determinations were carried out. The threshold for low serum testosterone was set at TT<3 ng/ml. Preoperative PSA value was registered. Gleason score (GS) and predominant Gleason pattern were determined in prostate biopsies and in prostate tissue specimens, crosschecked by two uro-pathologists. RESULTS: Nine hundred and thirty-seven consecutive patients were included. In all, 14.9% patients had low TT in the population. An exact match between biopsy and prostate specimens in GS grading was observed for 50.6% patients (n=474). Also, 40.9% of all patients were upgraded (n=383): 45.3% (n=63) in low serum testosterone patients and 40.1% (n=320) in normal serum testosterone patients. For prostate specimens, the proportion of patients with predominant Gleason pattern 4 was higher in patients with low TT compared with normal TT (41.7% vs 29.1%, P=0.0029). In all, 20.1% were upgraded from predominant Gleason pattern 3 on biopsies specimen to predominant Gleason 4 pattern on the prostate specimen in patients with low TT, whereas 11.6% were upgraded for normal TT patients (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Low serum testosterone is an independent risk factor for predominant Gleason pattern 4 on prostate specimen after RP and for upgrading from low- to high-grade cancer between prostate needle biopsies and RP specimen. This observation should be taken into account in localised PCa management, especially for active surveillance or when a nerve-sparing approach is considered.
BACKGROUND: To compare histological feature of prostate cancer (PCa) according androgenic status in patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Between March 2007 and September 2013, we prospectively analysed 937 patients who were referred to our centre for RP. Clinical, pathological and biological data have been prospectively collected. Preoperative total testosterone (TT) and bioavailable testosterone (BT) serum determinations were carried out. The threshold for low serum testosterone was set at TT<3 ng/ml. Preoperative PSA value was registered. Gleason score (GS) and predominant Gleason pattern were determined in prostate biopsies and in prostate tissue specimens, crosschecked by two uro-pathologists. RESULTS: Nine hundred and thirty-seven consecutive patients were included. In all, 14.9% patients had low TT in the population. An exact match between biopsy and prostate specimens in GS grading was observed for 50.6% patients (n=474). Also, 40.9% of all patients were upgraded (n=383): 45.3% (n=63) in low serum testosteronepatients and 40.1% (n=320) in normal serum testosteronepatients. For prostate specimens, the proportion of patients with predominant Gleason pattern 4 was higher in patients with low TT compared with normal TT (41.7% vs 29.1%, P=0.0029). In all, 20.1% were upgraded from predominant Gleason pattern 3 on biopsies specimen to predominant Gleason 4 pattern on the prostate specimen in patients with low TT, whereas 11.6% were upgraded for normal TTpatients (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Low serum testosterone is an independent risk factor for predominant Gleason pattern 4 on prostate specimen after RP and for upgrading from low- to high-grade cancer between prostate needle biopsies and RP specimen. This observation should be taken into account in localised PCa management, especially for active surveillance or when a nerve-sparing approach is considered.
Authors: Maximilian Seles; Thomas Gutschi; Katrin Mayrhofer; Katja Fischereder; Georg Ehrlich; Guenter Gallé; Stefan Gutschi; Oliver Pachernegg; Karl Pummer; Herbert Augustin Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Martin Andreas Røder; Ib Jarle Christensen; Kasper D Berg; Lisa Gruschy; Klaus Brasso; Peter Iversen Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Brian R Lane; Andrew J Stephenson; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Milton M Lakin; Eric A Klein Journal: Urology Date: 2008-08-09 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Steven M Petak; Howard R Nankin; Richard F Spark; Ronald S Swerdloff; Luis J Rodriguez-Rigau Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Kai Wang; Xinguang Chen; Victoria Y Bird; Travis A Gerke; Todd M Manini; Mattia Prosperi Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Dordaneh Sugano; Abhinav Sidana; Amit L Jain; Brian Calio; Sonia Gaur; Mahir Maruf; Maria Merino; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Jose M Flores; Helen L Bernie; Eduardo Miranda; Bruno Nascimento; Elizabeth Schofield; Nicole Benfante; Sigrid Carlsson; John P Mulhall Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 3.937
Authors: Sue M Evans; Varuni Patabendi Bandarage; Caroline Kronborg; Arul Earnest; Jeremy Millar; David Clouston Journal: Prostate Int Date: 2016-08-03
Authors: Matteo Ferro; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Dario Bruzzese; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Sisto Perdonà; Riccardo Autorino; Francesco Cantiello; Roberto La Rocca; Gian Maria Busetto; Amelia Cimmino; Carlo Buonerba; Michele Battaglia; Rocco Damiano; Ottavio De Cobelli; Vincenzo Mirone; Daniela Terracciano Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-03-14