Won Sik Jang1, Su-Jin Shin1, Cheol Yong Yoon1, Myung Soo Kim1, Dong Hyuk Kang1, Yong Jin Kang1, Won Sik Jeong1, Nam Hoon Cho1, Young Deuk Choi2. 1. Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Department of Pathology (NHC), Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Department of Pathology (NHC), Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: youngd74@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In prostate cancer ductal adenocarcinoma is mixed with the usual acinar adenocarcinoma. However, to our knowledge whether the proportion of the ductal component affects oncologic outcomes is currently unknown. We investigated whether the proportion of the ductal component predicts oncologic outcomes in ductal adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical data on 3,038 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution between 2005 and 2014. We excluded patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment. Patients were stratified based on the proportion of the ductal component. We compared the probability of biochemical recurrence between groups and investigated how the proportion of the ductal component influences biochemical recurrence using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Of 2,648 patients 101 (3.8%) had ductal adenocarcinoma and 2,547 (96.2%) had acinar adenocarcinoma. Freedom from biochemical recurrence in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma was significantly lower than in those with acinar adenocarcinoma (p <0.001). When ductal cases were stratified by the proportion of the ductal component, freedom from biochemical recurrence in the high ductal component group was significantly lower compared to that in the low ductal component group (30% or greater vs less than 30%, p = 0.023). On univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, a high ductal component was a significant predictor of biochemical recurrence (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis for ductal adenocarcinoma can be stratified by the proportion of the ductal component. This marker could potentially be used as a surrogate for poor prognosis or as a determinant for adjuvant therapy.
PURPOSE: In prostate cancer ductal adenocarcinoma is mixed with the usual acinar adenocarcinoma. However, to our knowledge whether the proportion of the ductal component affects oncologic outcomes is currently unknown. We investigated whether the proportion of the ductal component predicts oncologic outcomes in ductal adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical data on 3,038 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution between 2005 and 2014. We excluded patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment. Patients were stratified based on the proportion of the ductal component. We compared the probability of biochemical recurrence between groups and investigated how the proportion of the ductal component influences biochemical recurrence using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Of 2,648 patients 101 (3.8%) had ductal adenocarcinoma and 2,547 (96.2%) had acinar adenocarcinoma. Freedom from biochemical recurrence in patients with ductal adenocarcinoma was significantly lower than in those with acinar adenocarcinoma (p <0.001). When ductal cases were stratified by the proportion of the ductal component, freedom from biochemical recurrence in the high ductal component group was significantly lower compared to that in the low ductal component group (30% or greater vs less than 30%, p = 0.023). On univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses, a high ductal component was a significant predictor of biochemical recurrence (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The prognosis for ductal adenocarcinoma can be stratified by the proportion of the ductal component. This marker could potentially be used as a surrogate for poor prognosis or as a determinant for adjuvant therapy.
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