Literature DB >> 9436283

Comparison of pathologic characteristics of T1c and non-T1c cancers detected in a population-based screening study, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.

R F Hoedemaeker1, J B Rietbergen, R Kranse, T H van der Kwast, F H Schröder.   

Abstract

In recent years the introduction of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) determination as a screening tool for early detection of prostate cancer in asymptomatic men has led to a markedly increased detection of prostate cancers that are neither palpable nor visible with transrectal ultrasonography (stage T1c). In this preliminary study we assessed pathologic features and aspects that are indicative of clinical significance in T1c tumors and tumors with palpable or visible lesions (non-T1c tumors). Between June 1994 and December 1995, 51 consecutive radical prostatectomies were performed on screened participants in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). After determination of pathologic stage and Gleason score, morphometric analysis was performed to determine tumor volume. Radical prostatectomy specimens were divided into three mutually exclusive subsets: T1c tumors, non-T1c tumors with preoperative PSA levels below 4 ng/ml, and non-T1c tumors with PSA levels equal to or greater than 4 ng/ml. These subsets were compared for differences in the distribution of tumor volume, pathologic stage, and Gleason score. An arbitrarily constructed categorization model was used to assess clinical significance. In all, 17 (33%) of the patients had clinical stage T1c disease. In our categorization mode, 88% of the T1c tumors fit the criteria for clinically significant tumors. T1c tumors, however, were significantly smaller (P < 0.01) and were more likely to be organ-confined (P = 0.01) as compared with non-T1c tumors in patients with an elevated preoperative serum PSA level. In contrast, tumors detected at preoperative PSA levels of < 4 ng/ml had comparably the lowest pathologic stages and tumor volumes in our series. In our categorization model, 42% of these tumors fit the criteria for minimal tumor. This group of radical prostatectomies was therefore most likely to harbor clinically insignificant cancer, a finding that was consistent in two other categorization models derived from earlier reports. T1c tumors comprise a large fraction of the tumors found in population-based screening. As judged by their pathologic characteristics. T1c tumors are clinically significant tumors. The overall low pathologic stage and Gleason score of these tumors make these patients excellent candidates for curative treatment by radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy. In contrast, some concern should be raised on the detection of tumors at low serum PSA levels by means of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound alone, since a substantial proportion of these tumors could be considered clinically insignificant. Long-term follow-up, however, is necessary to substantiate this view.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9436283     DOI: 10.1007/bf01300181

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  18 in total

Review 1.  The TNM classification of prostate cancer.

Authors:  F H Schröder; P Hermanek; L Denis; W R Fair; M K Gospodarowicz; M Pavone-Macaluso
Journal:  Prostate Suppl       Date:  1992

2.  Prospective evaluation plan for randomised trials of prostate cancer screening. The International Prostate Cancer Screening Trial Evaluation Group.

Authors:  A Auvinen; J B Rietbergen; L J Denis; F H Schröder; P C Prorok
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  Adenocarcinoma of the prostate in cystoprostatectomy specimens removed for bladder cancer.

Authors:  J E Montie; D P Wood; J E Pontes; J M Boyett; H S Levin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1989-01-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Unsuspected adenocarcinoma of the prostate in patients undergoing cystoprostatectomy for other causes: incidence, histology and morphometric observations.

Authors:  J N Kabalin; J E McNeal; H M Price; F S Freiha; T A Stamey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma between the ages of 20-69: an autopsy study of 249 cases.

Authors:  W A Sakr; D J Grignon; J D Crissman; L K Heilbrun; B J Cassin; J J Pontes; G P Haas
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  1994 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 6.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 3.466

7.  Detection of organ-confined prostate cancer is increased through prostate-specific antigen-based screening.

Authors:  W J Catalona; D S Smith; T L Ratliff; J W Basler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-08-25       Impact factor: 56.272

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

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; M Carmichael; C B Brendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Long-term survival among men with conservatively treated localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  P C Albertsen; D G Fryback; B E Storer; T F Kolon; J Fine
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995 Aug 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  The pathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer detectable with current diagnostic tests.

Authors:  M Ohori; T M Wheeler; J K Dunn; T A Stamey; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  3 in total

1.  Molecular cytogenetic analysis of prostatic adenocarcinomas from screening studies : early cancers may contain aggressive genetic features.

Authors:  J C Alers; P J Krijtenburg; A N Vis; R F Hoedemaeker; M F Wildhagen; W C Hop; T T van Der Kwast; F H Schröder; H J Tanke; H van Dekken
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.307

Review 2.  Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theo H Van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Long-term outcomes of nonpalpable prostate cancer (T1c) patients treated with radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Yoshiyasu Amiya; Makoto Sasaki; Takayuki Shima; Yuusuke Tomiyama; Noriyuki Suzuki; Shino Murakami; Hiroomi Nakatsu; Jun Shimazaki
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2015-02-10
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.