OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnosis, outcome and final pathology of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer performed by urologists in a clinic where six urologists perform a total of 50 radical prostatectomies a year, using radical prostatectomy specimens processed routinely. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Radical prostatectomy was performed in 273 patients who were followed prospectively. The radical prostatectomy specimens were evaluated for pathological stage, histological grade, capsular perforation, positive and apical margins of resection, seminal vesicle invasion, perineural invasion and vascular invasion; the lymph node status was also determined. The relationship between these variables and clinical progression, local recurrence, distant metastases, biochemical progression, overall survival and cancer-specific survival was assessed. RESULTS: All evaluated variables were significantly predictive for clinical and biochemical progression in the univariate analyses, and all but perineural invasion and lymph node status for cancer-specific survival. Multivariate analysis showed vascular invasion to be the most important prognostic variable, followed by capsular perforation, positive margins of resection and poorly differentiated carcinoma. The overall results for the evaluated variables were comparable to the results from centres with greater experience. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of treatment in this small clinic was similar to that from larger clinics with more experience. The routine evaluation of the radical prostatectomy specimens identified pathological variables which were important prognostic factors, with vascular invasion, capsular perforation, positive margins of resection and poorly differentiated carcinoma being the most significant. The extent of vascular invasion should be part of the routine evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnosis, outcome and final pathology of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer performed by urologists in a clinic where six urologists perform a total of 50 radical prostatectomies a year, using radical prostatectomy specimens processed routinely. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Radical prostatectomy was performed in 273 patients who were followed prospectively. The radical prostatectomy specimens were evaluated for pathological stage, histological grade, capsular perforation, positive and apical margins of resection, seminal vesicle invasion, perineural invasion and vascular invasion; the lymph node status was also determined. The relationship between these variables and clinical progression, local recurrence, distant metastases, biochemical progression, overall survival and cancer-specific survival was assessed. RESULTS: All evaluated variables were significantly predictive for clinical and biochemical progression in the univariate analyses, and all but perineural invasion and lymph node status for cancer-specific survival. Multivariate analysis showed vascular invasion to be the most important prognostic variable, followed by capsular perforation, positive margins of resection and poorly differentiated carcinoma. The overall results for the evaluated variables were comparable to the results from centres with greater experience. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of treatment in this small clinic was similar to that from larger clinics with more experience. The routine evaluation of the radical prostatectomy specimens identified pathological variables which were important prognostic factors, with vascular invasion, capsular perforation, positive margins of resection and poorly differentiated carcinoma being the most significant. The extent of vascular invasion should be part of the routine evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens.
Authors: Piotr Zareba; Richard Flavin; Masis Isikbay; Jennifer R Rider; Travis A Gerke; Stephen Finn; Andreas Pettersson; Francesca Giunchi; Robert H Unger; Alex M Tinianow; Swen-Olof Andersson; Ove Andrén; Katja Fall; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Fairleigh Reeves; Christopher M Hovens; Laurence Harewood; Shane Battye; Justin S Peters; Anthony J Costello; Niall M Corcoran Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Young Ik Lee; Hak Min Lee; Jung Ki Jo; Sangchul Lee; Sung Kyu Hong; Seok-Soo Byun; Sang Eun Lee; Jong Jin Oh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amar S Ahmad; Vishnu Parameshwaran; Luis Beltran; Gabrielle Fisher; Bernard V North; David Greenberg; Geraldine Soosay; Henrik Møller; Peter Scardino; Jack Cuzick; Daniel M Berney Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-04-17