Impact of the Proportion of Biopsy Positive Core in Predicting Biochemical Recurrence in Patients with Pathological Pt2 and Negative Resection Margin Status after Radical Prostatectomy.
Biochemical recurrence
Biopsy Gleason score
Negative surgical margin
Organ-confined prostate cancer
Proportion of biopsy positive core
Radical prostatectomy
Journal
Pathology oncology research : POR
ISSN: 1532-2807
Titre abrégé: Pathol Oncol Res
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9706087
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
11
07
2019
accepted:
10
10
2019
pubmed:
10
1
2020
medline:
13
7
2021
entrez:
10
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to determine the prognostic factors associated with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with pathological T2 (pT2) prostate cancer (PCa) and negative resection margin (RM) status at a single institution. In this retrospective study, we examined 386 patients who were diagnosed with pT2 PCa with negative RM after RP. The length of the tumor was provided for each biopsy core and the overall percentage of PCa was calculated by a pathologist at our institution. We estimated the BCR-free survival (BRFS) in these patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model to determine the risk factors of BCR. The median age of the participants was 68 years, and their initial prostate-specific antigen level was 6.55 ng/mL. The median follow-up period was 85.7 months. The 5-year BRFS rate of the participants was 89.0%. The 5-year BRFS rates were 89.8% in patients with a biopsy Gleason score of 6, 90.4% in those with 7, and 64.1% in those with ≥8 (P = 0.007). The BRFS rate was 93.3% in patients who had a biopsy positive core ≤20% and 82.0% in those who had ≥21% (P = 0.001). Based on the multivariate analysis, the proportion of biopsy positive core was significantly associated with BCR. The proportion of biopsy positive core may predict preoperative covariates in patients with pT2 PCa and negative RM status after RP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31916185
doi: 10.1007/s12253-019-00762-6
pii: 10.1007/s12253-019-00762-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2115-2121Références
Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A et al (2015) The global burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 1:505–527
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0735
Projected Cancer Statistics, 2018. Cancer Information Services. https://ganjoho.jp/en/public/statistics/short_pred.html Accessed 15 September 2018
Gettman MT, Blute ML (2010) Radical prostatectomy: does surgical technique influence margin control? Urol Oncol 28:219–225
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.07.014
Rampersaud EN, Sun L, Moul JW et al (2008) Percent tumor involvement and risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 180:571–576
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.04.017
Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O et al (2011) Impact of positive surgical margins on prostate-specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients. BJU Int 107:1748–1754
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09728.x
Chang SS, Cookson MS (2006) Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. Urology 68:249–252
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.03.053
Zhang LJ, Wu B, Zha ZL et al (2018) Perineural invasion as an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Urol 18:5
doi: 10.1186/s12894-018-0319-6
Mitsuzuka K, Narita S, Koie T et al (2015) Lymphovascular invasion is significantly associated with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy even in patients with pT2N0 negative resection margin. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18:25–30
doi: 10.1038/pcan.2014.40
Srougi V, Bessa J Jr, Baghdadi M et al (2017) Surgical method influences specimen margins and biochemical recurrence during radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 35:1481–1488
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2021-9
Hernandez DJ, Nielsen ME, Han M et al (2008) Natural history of pathologically organ-confined (pT2), Gleason score 6 or less, prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urology 72:172–176
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.055
Budäus L, Isbarn H, Eichelberg C et al (2010) Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: multiplicative interaction between surgical margin status and pathological stage. J Urol 184:1341–1346
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.018
Hamano I, Hatakeyama S, Yoneyama T et al (2016) Safety of heparin bridging therapy for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients requiring temporary discontinuation of antithrombotic agents. Springerplus 5:1917
doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-3610-6
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016)PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
Koie T, Yamamoto H, Hatakeyama S et al (2011) Minimum incision endoscopic radical prostatectomy: clinical and oncological outcomes at a single institute. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:805–810
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.06.009
Fujita N, Koie T, Hashimoto Y et al (2018) Neoadjuvant chemohormonal therapy followed by robot-assisted and minimum incision endoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: comparison of perioperative and oncological outcomes at single institution. Int Urol Nephrol 50:1999–2005
doi: 10.1007/s11255-018-1985-8
Narita T, Koie T, Ookubo T et al (2017) The impact of extended lymph node dissection versus neoadjuvant therapy with limited lymph node dissection on biochemical recurrence in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. Med Oncol 34:1
doi: 10.1007/s12032-016-0859-0
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB et al (2005) The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 29:1228–1242
doi: 10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
American Joint Committee on Cancer (2010) Urinary bladder. In: Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC et al (ed) AJCC Cancer staging manual, 7th Edition. Springer, New York, pp457–468
Isbarn H, Wanner M, Salomon G et al (2010)Long-term data on the survival of patients with prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy in the prostate-specific antigen era. BJU Int 106:37–43
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09134.x
Kotb AF, Elabbady AA (2011) Prognostic factors for the development of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer 2011:485189
doi: 10.1155/2011/485189
Karakiewicz PI, Eastham JA, Graefen M et al (2005) Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. Urology 66:1245–1250
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.108
Galiabovitch E, Hovens CM, Peters JS et al (2017) Routinely reported 'equivocal' lymphovascular invasion in prostatectomy specimens is associated with adverse outcomes. BJU Int 119:567–572
doi: 10.1111/bju.13594
Lee JT, Lee S, Yun CJ et al (2010) Prediction of perineural invasion and its prognostic value in patients with prostate cancer. Korean J Urol 51:745–751
doi: 10.4111/kju.2010.51.11.745
Yu HH, Song DY, Tsai YY et al (2007) Perineural invasion affects biochemical recurrence-free survival in patients with prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy. Urology 70:111–116
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.020
Ishida M, Nakashima J, Hashiguchi A et al (2009) Are predictive models for cancer volume clinically useful in localized prostate cancer? Int J Urol 16:936–940
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02399.x
Tan CH, Wei W, Johnson V, Kundra V (2012)Diffusion-weighted MRI in the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:822–829
doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7805
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757
doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
Berney DM, Beltran L, Sandu H et al (2019) The percentage of high-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma in prostate biopsies significantly improves on grade groups in the prediction of prostate cancer death. Histopathology. 75:589–597
doi: 10.1111/his.13888
Guedes LB, Almutairi F, Haffner MC et al (2017) Analytic, preanalytic, and clinical validation of p53 IHC for detection of TP53 missense mutation in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 23:4693–4703
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0257
Yoneyama T, Tobisawa Y, Kaneko T et al (2019) Clinical significance of the LacdiNAc-glycosylated prostate-specific antigen assay for prostate cancer detection. Cancer Sci 110:2573–2589
pubmed: 31145522
pmcid: 6676104