Seyed Behzad Jazayeri1, Young S Kwon2, Russell McBride3, Michael Leapman4, Shemille Collingwood4, Adele Hobbs5, David B Samadi1. 1. Department of Urology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, N.Y, USA. 2. Department of Urology, Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, Ga., USA. 3. Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, N.Y, USA. 4. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, N.Y, USA. 5. Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, Calif., USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Upgrading following prostate biopsy is very common in clinical practice. This study investigated whether the use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (ARI) and alpha blockers affect known clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading or not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study on 998 patients treated with robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for clinically localized biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer were studied. The logarithm of prostate specific antigen concentration, prostate size and tumor volume were compared on the basis of the medication history of 5-ARIs and alpha blockers in the cohort of biopsy Gleason 6 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia history, and patients whose prostate sizes fall in the top quartile. We compared known clinical and pathologic characteristics associated with upgrading in regression models with and without the addition of medications. RESULTS: Alpha blockers, but not 5-ARI were associated with a bigger prostate. Upgrading was associated with older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06), higher BMI (OR 1.00 CI 1.01-1.08), higher log prostate specific antigen (OR 7.32, CI 3.546-15.52), smaller prostate size (OR 0.97, CI 0.96-0.98), fewer biopsy cores (OR 0.96 CI 0.92-0.99), more positive cores (OR 1.20, CI 1.08-1.34), and higher percentage of tumor at biopsy (OR 1.02, CI 1.01-1.03). Neither of the two medication classes were a significant predictor of upgrading. Medications made minimal changes in the multivariate predictive models. CONCLUSION: Although, alpha blockers were associate with bigger prostate size, the modulating effects of alpha blockers and 5-ARIs on common predictors of Gleason score upgrading was not significant.
BACKGROUND: Upgrading following prostate biopsy is very common in clinical practice. This study investigated whether the use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (ARI) and alpha blockers affect known clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading or not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study on 998 patients treated with robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for clinically localized biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer were studied. The logarithm of prostate specific antigen concentration, prostate size and tumor volume were compared on the basis of the medication history of 5-ARIs and alpha blockers in the cohort of biopsy Gleason 6patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia history, and patients whose prostate sizes fall in the top quartile. We compared known clinical and pathologic characteristics associated with upgrading in regression models with and without the addition of medications. RESULTS: Alpha blockers, but not 5-ARI were associated with a bigger prostate. Upgrading was associated with older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06), higher BMI (OR 1.00 CI 1.01-1.08), higher log prostate specific antigen (OR 7.32, CI 3.546-15.52), smaller prostate size (OR 0.97, CI 0.96-0.98), fewer biopsy cores (OR 0.96 CI 0.92-0.99), more positive cores (OR 1.20, CI 1.08-1.34), and higher percentage of tumor at biopsy (OR 1.02, CI 1.01-1.03). Neither of the two medication classes were a significant predictor of upgrading. Medications made minimal changes in the multivariate predictive models. CONCLUSION: Although, alpha blockers were associate with bigger prostate size, the modulating effects of alpha blockers and 5-ARIs on common predictors of Gleason score upgrading was not significant.
Authors: J Curtis Nickel; Carlos E Méndez-Probst; Thomas F Whelan; Ryan F Paterson; Hassan Razvi Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Lars Budäus; Markus Graefen; Georg Salomon; Hendrik Isbarn; Giovanni Lughezzani; Maxine Sun; Felix K H Chun; Thorsten Schlomm; Thomas Steuber; Alexander Haese; Jens Koellermann; Guido Sauter; Margit Fisch; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2010-08-31 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: Ying Shi; Kathy Z Fung; Stephen J Freedland; Richard M Hoffman; Victoria L Tang; Louise C Walter Journal: Urology Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: L Spencer Krane; Mani Menon; Sanjeev A Kaul; Sameer A Siddiqui; Christel Wambi; James O Peabody; Piyush K Agarwal Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Liza Quintana; Ashley Ward; Sean J Gerrin; Elizabeth M Genega; Seymour Rosen; Martin G Sanda; Andrew A Wagner; Peter Chang; William C DeWolf; Huihui Ye Journal: Urology Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ahmed Magheli; Stefan Hinz; Claudia Hege; Carsten Stephan; Klaus Jung; Kurt Miller; Michael Lein Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael S Cohen; Robert S Hanley; Teodora Kurteva; Robin Ruthazer; Mark L Silverman; Andrea Sorcini; Karim Hamawy; Robert A Roth; Ingolf Tuerk; John A Libertino Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-03-28 Impact factor: 20.096