Literature DB >> 7506797

Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.

J I Epstein1, P C Walsh, M Carmichael, C B Brendler.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We examined preoperative clinical and pathologic parameters in men with clinical stage T1c disease who underwent radical prostatectomy and correlated these findings with the pathologic extent of disease in the surgical specimen in an attempt to identify a subset of patients with potentially biologically insignificant tumor who might be followed up without immediate treatment. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: A case series of 157 consecutive men who underwent radical prostatectomy for clinical stage T1c disease compared with 64 similarly treated clinical stage T1a cancers (incidental minimal cancers found on transurethral resection of prostate) and 439 clinical stage T2 (palpable) cancers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pathologic stage, grade, and margins; tumor volume; and tumor location.
RESULTS: Sixteen percent of tumors were insignificant (< 0.2 cm3 and confined to the prostate, with a Gleason score < 7); 10% were minimal (0.2 to 0.5 cm3 and confined to the prostate, with a Gleason score < 7); 37% were moderate (> 0.5 cm3 or capsular penetration, with a Gleason score < 7); and 37% were advanced (capsular penetration, with a Gleason score > or = 7 or positive margins, seminal vesicles, or lymph nodes). These findings are intermediate between those found in clinical stage T1a and stage T2 disease. The following parameters were not predictive of tumor extent: age, reason for evaluation, method of detection, and transrectal ultrasound. The best model predicting insignificant tumor was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density less than 0.1 ng/mL per gram and no adverse pathologic findings on needle biopsy, or PSA density of 0.1 to 0.15 ng/mL per gram, with a low- to intermediate-grade cancer smaller than 3 mm found in only one needle biopsy core specimen. The positive predictive value of the model was 95%, with a negative predictive value of 66%. We accurately predicted 73% of cases with insignificant tumor.
CONCLUSIONS: Eighty-four percent of nonpalpable prostate cancers diagnosed by screening techniques are significant tumors and warrant definitive therapy. However, 16% are insignificant. Serum PSA level, PSA density, and needle biopsy pathologic findings are accurate predictors of tumor extent. It may be reasonable to follow up some patients whose tumors are most likely insignificant with serial PSA measurements and repeated biopsies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7506797

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  350 in total

1.  Caveolin-1 upregulation contributes to c-Myc-induced high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and prostate cancer.

Authors:  Guang Yang; Alexei A Goltsov; Chengzhen Ren; Shinji Kurosaka; Kohei Edamura; Richard Logothetis; Francesco J DeMayo; Patricia Troncoso; Jorge Blando; John DiGiovanni; Timothy C Thompson
Journal:  Mol Cancer Res       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 5.852

Review 2.  Management of low (favourable)-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin; Changhong Yu; Kristen L Zakian; Kazuma Udo; Peter T Scardino; James Eastham; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 5.588

4.  Prostate cancers in men with low PSA levels--must we find them?

Authors:  H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-05-27       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  [Influence of transrectal endosonography on the clinical staging of impalpable prostate cancer. A controversy over the TNM system].

Authors:  P G Hammerer; H Augustin; J Blonski; M Graefen; A Haese; A Erbersdobler; F Daghofer; H Huland
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Race/ethnicity and the receipt of watchful waiting for the initial management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Vickie L Shavers; Martin L Brown; Arnold L Potosky; Carrie N Klabunde; W W Davis; Judd W Moul; Angela Fahey
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 7.  Focal therapy of prostate cancer: evidence-based analysis for modern selection criteria.

Authors:  Michael R Abern; Matvey Tsivian; Thomas J Polascik
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 8.  Nuclear morphometry, nucleomics and prostate cancer progression.

Authors:  Robert W Veltri; Christhunesa S Christudass; Sumit Isharwal
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 3.285

9.  Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005.

Authors:  Danil V Makarov; Bruce J Trock; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Leslie A Mangold; Patrick C Walsh; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Natural history of small index lesions suspicious for prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: recommendations for interval imaging follow-up.

Authors:  Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Barış Türkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Lambros Stamatakis; Hong Truong; Jeffrey W Nix; Srinivas Vourganti; Kinzya B Grant; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.630

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.