1
|
Knipper S, Tilki D, Mazzone E, Mistretta FA, Palumbo C, Pecoraro A, Tian Z, Briganti A, Saad F, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI. Contemporary clinicopathological characteristics of pT0 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy: A population-based study. Urol Oncol 2019; 37:696-701. [PMID: 31129038 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2019] [Revised: 04/03/2019] [Accepted: 05/05/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The incidence of pT0 prostate cancer (CaP) at radical prostatectomy (RP) is extremely rare. We performed the first population-based analysis of pT0 CaP at RP. METHODS Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2015), we tested for clinical and pathological characteristics according to pT0 vs. non-pT0 CaP and included a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS pT0 was identified in 358 (0.2%) out of 160,532 clinically localized RP patients. The majority of pT0 patients presented with initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <10 ng/ml (82.4%), harboured biopsy Gleason score (GS) 6 (69.8%) and cT1 disease (78.1%). Nonetheless, pT0 was identified in 13 (3.6%) patients with PSA ≥20 ng/ml, in 69 (19.3%) patients with biopsy GS ≥7 and in 78 (21.8%) patients with ≥cT2 disease. In a subset of patients with available number of biopsy cores, pT0 was identified in 34 (33.3%) patients with ≥2 positive biopsy cores. Age, race, marital status, hospital region, population density, PSA, as well as number of biopsy cores did not discriminate between pT0 and non-pT0 cases. Analyses according to annual rates (2004-2015) of pT0 did not vary between the years (0.2%-1.6%, estimated annual percent change: -1.6%, P = 0.3). Neither did the rates vary according to geographic region. CONCLUSIONS pT0 at RP is very rare. Even though, most pT0 patients have low PSA, low clinical stage, low biopsy GS, and only one positive biopsy core, those with more aggressive characteristics can still harbour pT0 at RP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie Knipper
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Elio Mazzone
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Francesco A Mistretta
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy
| | - Carlotta Palumbo
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Urology Unit, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia. Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, University of Brescia, Italy
| | - Angela Pecoraro
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Division of Urology, University of Montréal Hospital Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Division of Urology, University of Montréal Hospital Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Soulié M, Salomon L. [Oncological outcomes of prostate cancer surgery]. Prog Urol 2015; 25:1010-27. [PMID: 26519965 DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2015.07.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2015] [Accepted: 07/30/2015] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Review of the oncological results of the radical prostatectomy as initial treatment of prostate cancer, according to the surgical approach and the risk stratification using D'Amico risk groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS Review of literature using Medline databases and MedScience based on scientific relevance. Research focused on the oncological results of the radical prostatectomy in series and meta-analysis published since 10 years, taking into consideration the surgical approach if mentioned. RESULTS The characteristics of the operated tumor highly impact the local control authenticated by the pathologic stage and the rates of positive surgical margins (PSM), in addition to the survival and the biochemical recurrence. Surgical technique adapted according to the tumor treated, was a constant challenge to the urologist, who counter balance between the oncological control and the conservation of urinary and sexual function by conditioning the type of radical prostatectomy. Results of radical prostatectomy acceptable in terms of PSM and survival are not influenced by the surgical approach but by the degree of surgical experience. CONCLUSION Results of radical prostatectomy show the efficient local control of prostate cancer, taking into consideration the oncological rules and indications validated by multidisciplinary meetings, based on the national (CCAFU) and European oncological guidelines. Tendency is going toward considering radical prostatectomy indicated for patients with higher risk of disease progression, so integrating surgery in a multidisciplinary personalized approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Soulié
- Département d'urologie-andrologie-transplantation rénale, CHU Rangueil, 1, avenue Jean-Poulhès, 31059 Toulouse cedex 9, France.
| | - L Salomon
- Service d'urologie et de transplantation rénale et pancréatique, CHU Henri-Mondor, 51, avenue du Maréchal-de-Lattre-de-Tassigny, 94010 Créteil cedex, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lendínez-Cano G, Alonso-Flores J, Beltrán-Aguilar V, Cayuela A, Salazar-Otero S, Bachiller-Burgos J. Comparison of pathological data between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen in patients with low to very low risk prostate cancer. Actas Urol Esp 2015; 39:482-7. [PMID: 25895440 DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2015.02.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2014] [Revised: 02/12/2015] [Accepted: 02/14/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To analyze the correlation between pathological data found in radical prostatectomy and previously performed biopsy in patients at low risk prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the characteristics of radical prostatectomies performed in our center from January 2012 to November 2014. The inclusion criteria were patients with low-risk disease (cT1c-T2a, PSA≤10ng/mL and Gleason score≤6). We excluded patients who had fewer than 8 cores in the biopsy, an unspecified number of affected cores, rectal examinations not reported in the medical history or biopsies performed in another center. RESULTS Of the 184 patients who underwent prostatectomy during this period, 87 met the inclusion criteria, and 26 of these had<3 affected cores and PSA density≤.15 (very low risk). In the entire sample, the percentage of undergrading (Gleason score≥7) and extracapsular invasion (pT3) was 18.4% (95% CI 10.3-27.6) and 10.35% (95% CI 4.6-17.2), respectively. The percentage of positive margins was 21.8% (95% CI 12.6-29.9). In the very low-risk group, we found no cases of extracapsular invasion and only 1 case of undergrading (Gleason 7 [3+4]), representing 3.8% of the total (95% CI 0-12.5). Predictors of no correlation (stage≥pT3a or undergrading) were the initial risk group, volume, PSA density and affected cores. CONCLUSIONS Prostate volume, PSA density, the number of affected cores and the patient's initial risk group influence the poor pathological prognosis in the radical prostatectomy specimen (extracapsular invasion and Gleason score≥7).
Collapse
|
4
|
Moreira DM, Gershman B, Rangel LJ, Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Frank I, Tollefson MK, Gettman MT, Karnes RJ. Evaluation of pT0 prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2015; 118:379-83. [PMID: 26305996 DOI: 10.1111/bju.13266] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the incidence, predictors and oncological outcomes of pT0 prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis of 20 222 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for PCa at the Mayo Clinic between 1987 and 2012. Disease recurrence was defined as follow-up PSA >0.4 ng/mL or biopsy-proven local recurrence. Systemic progression was defined as development of metastatic disease on imaging. Comparisons of baseline characteristics between pT0 and non-pT0 groups were carried out using chi-squared tests. Recurrence-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS A total of 62 patients (0.3%) had pT0 disease according to the RP specimen. In univariable analysis, pT0 disease was significantly associated with older age (P = 0.045), lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA; P = 0.002), lower clinical stage (P < 0.001), lower biopsy Gleason score (P = 0.042), and receipt of preoperative transurethral resection, hormonal and radiation therapies (all P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, lower PSA levels, lower Gleason score, and receipt of preoperative treatment were independently associated with pT0 (all P < 0.05). Seven patients (11%) with pT0 PCa developed disease recurrence over a median follow-up of 10.9 years. All seven patients had preoperative treatment(s) and three had recurrence with a PSA doubling time of <9 months. Compared with non-pT0 disease, pT0 disease was associated with longer recurrence-free survival (P < 0.05). Only one (1.6%) patient with pT0 disease developed systemic progression. CONCLUSIONS pT0 stage PCa is a rare phenomenon and is associated with receipt of preoperative treatment and features of low-risk PCa. Although pT0 has a very favourable prognosis, some men, especially those who received preoperative treatment, experience a small but non-negligible risk of disease recurrence and systemic progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel M Moreira
- Department of Urology, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Boris Gershman
- Department of Urology, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Laureano J Rangel
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Stephen A Boorjian
- Department of Urology, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Robert Houston Thompson
- Department of Urology, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Igor Frank
- Department of Urology, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Matthew K Tollefson
- Department of Urology, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Matthew T Gettman
- Department of Urology, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Robert Jeffrey Karnes
- Department of Urology, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|