Literature DB >> 27306657

Total intraglandular and index tumor volumes predict biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer.

Su-Jin Shin1, Cheol Keun Park1, Sung Yoon Park2, Won Sik Jang3, Joo Yong Lee3, Young Deuk Choi3, Nam Hoon Cho4,5,6.   

Abstract

Prognostic value of tumor volume for biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer remains controversial. We aimed to determine which tumor volume definition would optimally correlate with established prognostic factors and classify macroscopic tumor configuration. Radical prostatectomy specimens with follow-up to biochemical recurrence in the period between 2009 and 2012 were retrieved. Newly proposed categories of reconstructed three-dimensional macroscopic tumor configuration were nodular, medial prominence, subcapsular spreading, and miliary types. Several algorithms were applied to identify optimal tumor volume including (1) combined volume of all nodules, (2) volume of largest nodule as index tumor, and (3) volume of nodule with strongest evidence of poor prognosis. Macroscopic typing correlated well with radiologic findings, and nodular type was most common (70.7 %). In most multifocal tumors, the largest nodule showed the highest Gleason score (90.8 %) as well as extraprostatic extension or seminal vesicle invasion (93.5 %). Total tumor and index tumor volumes were significant predictors of biochemical recurrence (both, P < 0.0001). Tumor volume, classified in three groups with cutoff values at 2 and 5 cm(3), was independently predictive of recurrence-free survival in multivariate analysis (P < 0.05) and surpassed bilaterality even in stage pT2. In pT2 disease, recurrence-free survival was significantly associated with total tumor volume (P = 0.003) and index tumor volume (P = 0.002), but not with pT2 substage (P = 0.278). The proposed macroscopic classification system can be correlated with preoperative imaging findings. Total tumor or index tumor volume significantly predicts biochemical recurrence. Tumor volume classification is easy to apply in practice with high reproducibility and offsets the limitations of pT classification.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Neoplasm grading; Prostatic neoplasms; Recurrence; Tumor burden

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27306657     DOI: 10.1007/s00428-016-1971-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Virchows Arch        ISSN: 0945-6317            Impact factor:   4.064


  35 in total

1.  Re-evaluating the concept of "dominant/index tumor nodule" in multifocal prostate cancer.

Authors:  Cheng Cheng Huang; Fang-Ming Deng; Max X Kong; Qinhu Ren; Jonathan Melamed; Ming Zhou
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Percentage of high-grade tumour volume does not meaningfully improve prediction of early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy compared with Gleason score.

Authors:  Jens Hansen; Marco Bianchi; Maxine Sun; Michael Rink; Fabio Castiglione; Firas Abdollah; Thomas Steuber; Sascha A Ahyai; Stefan Steurer; Cosima Göbel; Massimo Freschi; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Margit Fisch; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Alberto Briganti; Felix K-H Chun
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-12-02       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Current Histopathologic and Molecular Characterisations of Prostate Cancer: Towards Individualised Prognosis and Therapies.

Authors:  Matteo Santoni; Marina Scarpelli; Roberta Mazzucchelli; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Liang Cheng; Jonathan I Epstein; Stefano Cascinu; Alberto Briganti; James W Catto; Francesco Montorsi; Rodolfo Montironi
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Detailed mapping of prostate carcinoma foci: biopsy strategy implications.

Authors:  M E Chen; D A Johnston; K Tang; R J Babaian; P Troncoso
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume.

Authors:  M Noguchi; T A Stamey; J E McNeal; C E Yemoto
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 6.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

7.  Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis.

Authors:  Tsutomu Tamada; Teruki Sone; Yoshimasa Jo; Akira Yamamoto; Takenori Yamashita; Naoto Egashira; Shigeki Imai; Masao Fukunaga
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-06-06       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Positive-block ratio in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence.

Authors:  Rebecca A Marks; Haiqun Lin; Michael O Koch; Liang Cheng
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 6.394

9.  Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors.

Authors:  Laurent Salomon; Olivier Levrel; Aristotelis G Anastasiadis; Jacques Irani; Alexandre De La Taille; Fabien Saint; Dimitri Vordos; Antony Cicco; Andras Hoznek; Dominique Chopin; Claude Clément Abbou
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  2 in total

1.  Association between pathologic factors and ERG expression in prostate cancer: finding pivotal networking.

Authors:  Seung-Ryeol Lee; Young-Deuk Choi; Nam-Hoon Cho
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 4.553

2.  Predictors of adverse pathologic features after radical prostatectomy in low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jae Won Park; Dong Hoon Koh; Won Sik Jang; Kang Su Cho; Won Sik Ham; Koon Ho Rha; Sung Joon Hong; Young Deuk Choi
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 4.430

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.