| Literature DB >> 33376609 |
Pitchou Mukaz Mbey1, Olivier Mukuku2, Willy Kalau Arung1, Guylain Kitoko Tengu3, Nasser Lubosha Amisi4, Véronique Kabila Kyabu5, Etienne Fwamba Koshe Odimba1, François Katombe Tshilombo1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is currently a public health problem with a frequency that varies from country to country. This study aims to describe the epidemiological, clinical, and histopathological and outcome features of prostate cancer in Lubumbashi in the Democratic Republic of Congo.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33376609 PMCID: PMC7746450 DOI: 10.1155/2020/5286929
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prostate Cancer ISSN: 2090-312X
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients.
| Variable | Number ( | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| <50 years | 2 | 2.27 |
| 50–59 years | 7 | 7.95 |
| 60–69 years | 38 | 43.18 |
| 70–79 years | 32 | 36.36 |
| ≥80 years | 9 | 10.23 |
| Mean ± SD (range) | 68.73 ± 8.02 | 47–90 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| None | 61 | 69.32 |
| High blood pressure | 15 | 17.05 |
| Diabetes | 8 | 9.09 |
| Respiratory failure | 3 | 3.41 |
| Heart failure | 2 | 2.27 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Voiding disorder | 49 | 55.68 |
| Lucky find | 32 | 36.36 |
| Spinal pain | 9 | 10.23 |
| Edema of the lower limbs | 5 | 5.68 |
| Hematuria | 3 | 3.41 |
| Hemospermia | 2 | 2.27 |
| Paraplegia | 2 | 2.27 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Normal | 49 | 55.68 |
| Abnormal | 39 | 44.32 |
PSA level, prognostic features, and different treatment approaches of the patients.
| Variable | Number ( | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| <10 ng/ml | 11 | 12.50 |
| 10–100 ng/ml | 48 | 54.55 |
| >100 ng/ml | 29 | 32.95 |
| Mean (range) | 133.7 | (4–1564.5) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| <4 ng/ml | 17 | 19.32 |
| 4–9.9 ng/ml | 10 | 11.36 |
| 10–100 ng/ml | 30 | 34.09 |
| >100 ng/ml | 31 | 35.23 |
| Mean (range) | 125.4 | (0.16–1782.1) |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| <7 | 26 | 29.55 |
| 7 | 34 | 38.64 |
| >7 | 28 | 31.82 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Low risk | 18 | 20.45 |
| Intermediate risk | 18 | 20.45 |
| High risk | 52 | 59.10 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Hormone therapy | 66 | 75.00 |
| Hormone therapy + pulpectomy | 12 | 13.64 |
| Surveillance | 6 | 6.82 |
| Radical prostatectomy | 4 | 4.55 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Survived | 50 | 56.82 |
| Deceased | 24 | 27.27 |
| Lost to follow-up | 14 | 15.91 |
Figure 1Correlation of PSA level at diagnosis as a function of the Gleason score.
Characteristics of the patients according to their outcomes.
| Variable | Survived ( | Deceased ( | Lost to follow-up ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Mean (range) | 68.48 (49–90) | 68.79 (47–83) | 69.57 (60–80) | 0.905 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Mean (range) | 80.38 (6.5–89.32) | 268.35 (9–1564.50) | 93.53 (4–251.00) | 0.007 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| Mean (range) | 28.44 (0.16–87.12) | 357.66 (88.13–1782.10) | 73.39 (0.23–201.16) | <0.0001 |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.6966 | |||
| Present | 14 (28.00%) | 9 (37.50%) | 4 (28.57%) | |
| Absent | 36 (72.00%) | 15 (62.50%) | 10 (71.43%) | |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.0013 | |||
| Normal | 35 (70.00%) | 6 (25.00%) | 8 (57.14%) | |
| Abnormal | 15 (30.00%) | 18 (75.00%) | 6 (42.86%) | |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.1163 | |||
| Low risk | 12 (24.00%) | 4 (16.67%) | 2 (14.29%) | |
| Intermediate risk | 13 (26.00%) | 1 (4.17%) | 4 (28.57%) | |
| High risk | 25 (50.00%) | 19 (79.17%) | 8 (57.14%) | |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.0513 | |||
| <7 | 19 (38.00%) | 3 (12.50%) | 4 (28.57%) | |
| 7 | 19 (38.00%) | 8 (33.33%) | 7 (50.00%) | |
| >7 | 12 (24.00%) | 13 (54.17%) | 3 (21.43%) | |
Figure 2Three-year overall survival by prostate state on digital rectal examination of the patients. Patients with abnormalities show a relatively increased risk of dying compared to those without abnormalities.
Figure 3Three-year overall survival by Gleason score group of the patients. Patients with Gleason score >7 show a relatively increased risk of dying compared to those with Gleason score ≤7.
Figure 4Three-year overall survival by PSA (at diagnosis) group of the patients. Patients with PSA >100 ng/ml show a relatively increased risk of dying compared to those with PSA ≤100 ng/ml.
Figure 5Three-year survival by D'Amico risk classification group of the patients. Patients with high risk show a relatively increased risk of dying compared to those with low and intermediate risks.