Prognostic Importance of Lymphovascular Invasion for Specific Subgroup of Patients with Prostate Cancer After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (The MSUG94 Group).
Locally advanced prostate cancer
Lymphovascular invasion
Prostate cancer
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jan 2024
10 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
10
10
2023
accepted:
16
11
2023
medline:
11
1
2024
pubmed:
11
1
2024
entrez:
10
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
This study aimed to investigate whether lymphovascular invasion (LVI) was associated with oncological outcomes in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). This retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted on 3195 patients with PCa who underwent RARP in nine institutions in Japan. The primary endpoints were the associations between biochemical recurrence (BCR) and LVI and between BCR and clinicopathological covariates, while the secondary endpoints were the association between LVI and the site of clinical recurrence and metastasis-free survival (MFS). In total, 2608 patients met the inclusion criteria. At the end of the follow-up period, 311 patients (11.9%) were diagnosed with BCR and none died of PCa. In patients with pathological stage T2 (pT2) + negative resection margins (RM-), and pT3+ positive RM (RM+), LVI significantly worsened BCR-free survival (BRFS). For patients with PCa who had pT3 and RM+, the 2-year BRFS rate in those with LVI was significantly worse than in those without LVI. Patients with LVI had significantly worse MFS than those without LVI with respect to pT3, RM+, and pathological Gleason grade (pGG). In multivariate analysis, LVI was significantly associated with BRFS in patients with pT3 PCa, and with worse MFS in PCa patients with pT3, RM+, and pGG ≥ 4. LVI was an independent prognostic factor for recurrence and metastasis after RARP, particularly in patients with pT3 and RM+ PCa. Locally advanced PCa with positive LVI and RM+ requires careful follow-up because of the high likelihood of recurrence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38200385
doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14691-x
pii: 10.1245/s10434-023-14691-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Kessler B, Albertsen P. The natural history of prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2003;30(2):219–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0094-0143(02)00182-9 .
doi: 10.1016/s0094-0143(02)00182-9
pubmed: 12735499
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANMESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79:243–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 .
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
pubmed: 33172724
Saika T, Miura N, Fukumoto T, Yanagihara Y, Miyauchi T, kikugawa T. Role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2018;25:30–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13441 .
doi: 10.1111/iju.13441
pubmed: 28901630
Rubio-Briones J, Ramírez-Backhaus M, Gómez-Ferrer A, et al. Long-term oncological results of treatment for high-risk prostate cancer using radical prostatectomy in a cancer hospital. Actas Urol Esp. 2018;42(8):507–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.007 .
doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.007
pubmed: 29631913
Carver BS, Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Long-term outcome following radical prostatectomy in men with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer. J Urol. 2006;176(2):564–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.03.093 .
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.03.093
pubmed: 16813890
Kato D, Ebara S, Tatenuma T, et al. Short-term oncological and surgical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a retrospective multicenter cohort study in Japan (the MSUG94 group). Asian J Endosc Surg. 2022;15:745–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/ases.13074 .
doi: 10.1111/ases.13074
pubmed: 35508895
Kawase M, Ebara S, Tatenuma T, et al. Clinical factors associated with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer with seminal vesicle invasion followed by robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a retrospective multicenter cohort study in Japan (the MSUG94 group). J Robot Surg. 2023;17:1609–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01567-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01567-1
pubmed: 36928750
Sukumar S, Rogers CG, Trinh QD, et al. Oncological outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: long-term follow-up in 4803 patients. BJU Int. 2014;114(6):824–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12404 .
doi: 10.1111/bju.12404
pubmed: 24053586
Loeb S, Roehl KA, Yu X, et al. Lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens: prediction of adverse pathologic features and biochemical progression. Urology. 2006;68:99–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.004
pubmed: 16806410
Diaz M, Peabody JO, Kapoor V, et al. Oncologic outcomes at 10 years following robotic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1168–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.025 .
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.025
pubmed: 24996687
Saeter T, Vlatkovic L, Waaler G, et al. Combining lymphovascular invasion with reactive stromal grade predicts prostate cancer mortality. Prostate. 2016;76(12):1088–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23192 .
doi: 10.1002/pros.23192
pubmed: 27271973
Horimoto Y, Polanska UM, Takahashi Y, Orimo A. Emerging roles of the tumor-associated stroma in promoting tumor metastasis. Cell Adh Migr. 2012;6:193–202. https://doi.org/10.4161/cam.20631 .
doi: 10.4161/cam.20631
pubmed: 22568980
pmcid: 3427234
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the eastern cooperative oncology group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649–55.
doi: 10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014
pubmed: 7165009
Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, et al. NCCN guidelines® insights: prostate cancer, version 1.2023. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20(12):1288–98. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2022.0063 .
pubmed: 36509074
Buyyounouski MK, Choyke PL, McKenney JK, et al. Prostate cancer-major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:245–53.
doi: 10.3322/caac.21391
pubmed: 28222223
pmcid: 6375094
Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177:540–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.097
pubmed: 17222629
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29:1228-42.
Fajkovic H, Mathieu R, Lucca I, et al. Validation of lymphovascular invasion is an independent prognostic factor for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2016;34(5):233.e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.10.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.10.013
pubmed: 26973136
Herman CM, Wilcox GE, Kattan MW, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM. Lymphovascular invasion as a predictor of disease progression in prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24:859–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200006000-00012 .
doi: 10.1097/00000478-200006000-00012
pubmed: 10843289
Yamamoto S, Kawakami S, Yonese J, et al. Lymphovascular invasion is an independent predictor of prostate specific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in patients with pT3aN0 prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2008;15:895–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02140.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02140.x
pubmed: 18721204
Shariat SF, Khoddami SM, Saboorian H, et al. Lymphovascular invasion is a pathological feature of biologically aggressive disease in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004;171(3):1122–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000113249.82533.28 .
doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000113249.82533.28
pubmed: 14767284
Kang M, Oh JJ, Lee S, Hong SK, Lee SE, Byun SS. Perineural invasion and lymphovascular invasion are associated with increased risk of biochemical recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(8):2699–706. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5153-z .
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5153-z
pubmed: 26965702
Gesztes W, Schafer C, Young D, et al. Focal p53 protein expression and lymphovascular invasion in primary prostate tumors predict metastatic progression. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):5404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08826-5 .
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08826-5
pubmed: 35354846
pmcid: 8967869
Jamil M, Rakic N, Sood A, et al. Impact of lymphovascular invasion on overall survival in patients with prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy: stage-per-stage analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2021;19(5):e319–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.04.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2021.04.009
pubmed: 34154946
Rakic N, Jamil M, Keeley J, et al. Evaluation of lymphovascular invasion as a prognostic predictor of overall survival after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2021;39(8):495.e1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.01.007 .
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.01.007
pubmed: 33602620
Al Qa’qa’ S, Downes MR, Jain R, van der Kwast T. Morphologic pattern, frequency, and spatial distribution of lymphovascular invasion foci in radical prostatectomy specimens. Int J Surg Pathol. 2023;31(6):939–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/10668969221110456 .
doi: 10.1177/10668969221110456
pubmed: 35816346
Kobayashi T, Kimura T, Lee C, et al. Subclassification of high-risk clinically organ-confined prostate cancer for early cancer-specific mortality after radical prostatectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016;46(8):762–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyw061 .
doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyw061
pubmed: 27207889
Kim DY, Lee WW, Song YS, Hong SK, Byun SS, Kim JS. Detection of recurrence sites using 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT in prostate cancer patients with PSA failure. Prostate Int. 2023;11(2):69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2022.11.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2022.11.001
pubmed: 37409097
Ghadjar P, Hayoz S, Genitsch V, et al. Importance and outcome relevance of central pathology review in prostatectomy specimens: data from the SAKK 09/10 randomized trial on prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120:e45-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13742 .
doi: 10.1111/bju.13742
pubmed: 27987524