Seung-Kwon Choi1, Myungsun Shim2, Myong Kim3, Myungchan Park4, Sangmi Lee3, Cheryn Song3, Hyung-Lae Lee5, Hanjong Ahn6. 1. Department of Urology, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Urology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang, Korea. 3. Department of Urology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Urology, Inje University Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan, Korea. 5. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Urology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. hjahn@amc.seoul.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the better risk stratification based on surgical pathology, and to predict oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) with a better scoring system in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS: We evaluated high-risk PCa patients (PSA >20 ng/ml, ≥cT3a, or Gleason score 8-10) who underwent RP between 2007 and 2013 at our institute. We classified patients into three groups according to their pathologic outcomes: favorable (pT2, Gleason score ≤7, and node negative), intermediate (specimen-confined disease (pT2-3a, node negative PCa with negative surgical margins) but not in the favorable group), and unfavorable (the remaining patients). We developed a risk stratification scoring system to predict prognostic outcomes after RP and validated our scoring system to estimate its predictive accuracy. RESULTS: Among a total of 356 patients, 95 (26.7%), 115 (32.3%), and 146 (41%) were in the favorable, intermediate, and unfavorable prognostic groups, respectively. The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates of the patients in each group were 87.8, 64.6, and 41.4%, respectively. We developed a scoring system based on preoperative PSA, clinical stage, percentage of tumor positive core, and percentage of cores with a Gleason score 8-10. This demonstrated internally and externally validated concordance indices of 0.733 and 0.772, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using our scoring system, we can predict which patients with high-risk PCa would benefit more from RP. Thus, this system can be used in patient counseling to determine an optimal treatment strategy for high-risk PCa.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the better risk stratification based on surgical pathology, and to predict oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP) with a better scoring system in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients. METHODS: We evaluated high-risk PCa patients (PSA >20 ng/ml, ≥cT3a, or Gleason score 8-10) who underwent RP between 2007 and 2013 at our institute. We classified patients into three groups according to their pathologic outcomes: favorable (pT2, Gleason score ≤7, and node negative), intermediate (specimen-confined disease (pT2-3a, node negative PCa with negative surgical margins) but not in the favorable group), and unfavorable (the remaining patients). We developed a risk stratification scoring system to predict prognostic outcomes after RP and validated our scoring system to estimate its predictive accuracy. RESULTS: Among a total of 356 patients, 95 (26.7%), 115 (32.3%), and 146 (41%) were in the favorable, intermediate, and unfavorable prognostic groups, respectively. The 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rates of the patients in each group were 87.8, 64.6, and 41.4%, respectively. We developed a scoring system based on preoperative PSA, clinical stage, percentage of tumor positive core, and percentage of cores with a Gleason score 8-10. This demonstrated internally and externally validated concordance indices of 0.733 and 0.772, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using our scoring system, we can predict which patients with high-risk PCa would benefit more from RP. Thus, this system can be used in patient counseling to determine an optimal treatment strategy for high-risk PCa.
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Patrick J Bastian; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Theodor van der Kwast; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Thomas Wiegel; F Zattoni; Nicolas Mottet Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-10-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: William T Lowrance; Elena B Elkin; David S Yee; Andrew Feifer; Behfar Ehdaie; Lindsay M Jacks; Coral L Atoria; Michael J Zelefsky; Howard I Scher; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Stephen A Boorjian; R Jeffrey Karnes; Rosalia Viterbo; Laureano J Rangel; Eric J Bergstralh; Eric M Horwitz; Michael L Blute; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Fernando J Bianco; Zohar A Dotan; Paul A Fearn; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: James L Mohler; Philip W Kantoff; Andrew J Armstrong; Robert R Bahnson; Michael Cohen; Anthony Victor D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Thomas A Farrington; Celestia S Higano; Eric Mark Horwitz; Christopher J Kane; Mark H Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Timothy M Kuzel; Richard J Lee; Arnold W Malcolm; David Miller; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; David Raben; Sylvia Richey; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Stan Rosenfeld; Edward Schaeffer; Eric J Small; Guru Sonpavde; Sandy Srinivas; Cy Stein; Seth A Strope; Jonathan Tward; Dorothy A Shead; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jennifer R Stark; Sven Perner; Meir J Stampfer; Jennifer A Sinnott; Stephen Finn; Anna S Eisenstein; Jing Ma; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Tobias Kurth; Massimo Loda; Edward L Giovannucci; Mark A Rubin; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544