High percent tumor volume predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in pathological stage T3a prostate cancer with a negative surgical margin

被引:13
|
作者
You, Dalsan [1 ]
Jeong, In Gab [1 ]
Song, Cheryn [1 ]
Cho, Yong Mee [2 ]
Hong, Jun Hyuk [1 ]
Kim, Choung-Soo [1 ]
Ahn, Hanjong [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ulsan, Coll Med, Asan Med Ctr, Dept Urol, Seoul 138736, South Korea
[2] Univ Ulsan, Coll Med, Asan Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, Seoul 138736, South Korea
关键词
tumor volume; prostate cancer; surgical margins; prostatectomy; biochemical recurrence; POSTOPERATIVE RADIOTHERAPY; PROGNOSTIC-SIGNIFICANCE; DISEASE RECURRENCE; HIGH-RISK; MEN; PROGRESSION; LOCATION;
D O I
10.1111/iju.12348
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives To evaluate the impact of percent tumor volume and surgical margin status on biochemical recurrence in pT3-T4 prostate cancer. Methods A total of 397 patients who had pT3-T4N0 diseases and did not receive neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy were included for analysis. Results In the entire cohort, prostate-specific antigen (per 1 ng/mL increase; hazard ratio 1.019; P = 0.002), pathological stage (T3b-T4 vs T3a; hazard ratio 2.283; P < 0.001), Gleason score (>= 8 vs <= 6; hazard ratio 5.290; P = 0.005), surgical margin status (multiple positive vs negative; hazard ratio 1.839; P = 0.003) and lymphovascular invasion (present vs absent; hazard ratio 1.641; P = 0.008) were independent predictors of recurrence. Percent tumor volume was an independent predictor of recurrence in T3a diseases with negative surgical margins. In analysis using receiver operating characteristic curve, a threshold of 12% showed the best balance of sensitivity and specificity, 66% and 67%, respectively. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of pT3a diseases with negative surgical margin were 85.2% for percent tumor volume <= 12% and 57.7% for percent tumor volume >12% (P < 0.001). Patients with pT3a with negative surgical margins and percent tumor volume >12% showed comparable 5-year recurrence-free survival rate compared with those with pT3a with positive surgical margin (57.7% vs 57.6%; P = 0.763). Conclusions Despite having less impact on recurrence than other clinicopathological variables in pT3-T4 prostate cancer, percent tumor volume can further improve recurrence risk stratification in pT3a diseases with negative surgical margins.
引用
收藏
页码:484 / 489
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Is PSA Still the Best Predictor for Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer?
    Akan, Serkan
    Guner, Numan Dogu
    Ediz, Caner
    Sahin, Aytac
    Verit, Ayhan
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY, 2022, 35 (10) : 1733 - 1738
  • [32] Prostate Cancer: Role of Pretreatment Multiparametric 3-T MRI in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy
    Park, Jung Jae
    Kim, Chan Kyo
    Park, Sung Yoon
    Park, Byung Kwan
    Lee, Hyun Moo
    Cho, Seong Whi
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2014, 202 (05) : W459 - W465
  • [33] Tumour volume and high grade tumour volume are the best predictors of pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy
    Chun, Felix K. -H.
    Briganti, Alberto
    Jeldres, Claudio
    Gallina, Andrea
    Erbersdobler, Andreas
    Schlomm, Thorsten
    Walz, Jochen
    Eichelberg, Christian
    Salomon, Georg
    Haese, Alexander
    Currlin, Eike
    Ahyai, Sascha A.
    Benard, Francois
    Huland, Hartwig
    Graefen, Markus
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2007, 43 (03) : 536 - 543
  • [34] Effect of prostate size on pathological outcome and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: is it correlated with serum testosterone level?
    Kwon, Taekmin
    Jeong, In Gab
    You, Dalsan
    Park, Myung-Chan
    Hong, Jun Hyuk
    Ahn, Hanjong
    Kim, Choung-Soo
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2010, 106 (05) : 633 - 638
  • [35] Factors predicting biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy among patients with clinical T3 prostate cancer
    Otsuka, Masafumi
    Kamasako, Tomohiko
    Uemura, Toshihiro
    Takeshita, Nobushige
    Shinozaki, Tetsuo
    Kobayashi, Masayuki
    Komaru, Atsushi
    Fukasawa, Satoshi
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 48 (08) : 760 - 764
  • [36] Impact of Centralisation of Radical Prostatectomy Driven by the Introduction of Robotic Systems on Positive Surgical Margin and Biochemical Recurrence in pT2 Prostate Cancer
    Ibrahim, Ibrahim
    Kouli, Omar
    Ilangovan, Sanjana
    Sneddon, Melanie
    Nalagatla, Sarika
    Marshall, Carol
    Dutto, Lorenzo
    Leung, Hing Y.
    Ahmad, Imran
    CANCER MEDICINE, 2025, 14 (02):
  • [37] Tumor volume improves the long-term prediction of biochemical recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer with positive surgical margins
    Christian P. Meyer
    Jens Hansen
    Katharina Boehm
    Derya Tilki
    Firas Abdollah
    Quoc-Dien Trinh
    Margit Fisch
    Guido Sauter
    Markus Graefen
    Hartwig Huland
    Felix K. H. Chun
    Sascha A. Ahyai
    World Journal of Urology, 2017, 35 : 199 - 206
  • [38] Association between tumor-associated macrophage infiltration, high grade prostate cancer, and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy
    Gollapudi, Kiran
    Galet, Colette
    Grogan, Tristan
    Zhang, Hong
    Said, Jonathan W.
    Huang, Jiaoti
    Elashoff, David
    Freedland, Stephen J.
    Rettig, Matthew
    Aronson, William J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH, 2013, 3 (05): : 523 - 529
  • [39] Increased Peroxiredoxin 6 Expression Predicts Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer Patients After Radical Prostatectomy
    Raatikainen, Sami
    Aaaltomaa, Sirpa
    Karja, Vesa
    Soini, Ylermi
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2015, 35 (12) : 6465 - 6470
  • [40] Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy With or Without Pelvic Lymphadenectomy in Korean Men With High-risk Prostate Cancer
    Ku, Ja Hyeon
    Jeong, Chang Wook
    Park, Yong Hyun
    Cho, Min Chul
    Kwak, Cheol
    Kim, Hyeon Hoe
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2011, 41 (05) : 656 - 662