Are prostate carcinoma clinical stages T1C and T2 similar?

Association of Androgenic Regulation and MicroRNAs in Acinar Adenocarcinoma of Prostate

Background: Prostate cancer represents 3.8% of cancer deaths worldwide. For most prostate cancer cells to grow, androgens need to bind to a cellular protein called the androgen receptor (AR). This study aims to demonstrate the expression of five microRNAs (miRs) and its influence on the AR formation in patients from the northern region of Brazil. Material and Methods: Eighty-four tissue samples were investigated, including nodular prostatic hyperplasia (NPH) and acinar prostatic adenocarcinoma (CaP). Five miRs (27a-3p, 124, 130a, 488-3p, and 506) were quantified using the TaqMan^® Real Time PCR method and AR was measured using Western blotting. Results: Levels of miRs 124, 130a, 488-3p, and 506 were higher in NPH samples. Conversely, in the CaP cases, higher levels of miR 27a-3p and AR were observed. Conclusion: In the future, these microRNAs may be tested as markers of CaP at the serum level. The relative expression of AR was 20% higher in patients with prostate cancer, which suggests its potential as a biomarker for prostate malignancy.

Association Between Older Age and Increasing Gleason Score

INTRODUCTION

In order to help inform the discussion about the risks versus benefits of prostate cancer screening among older men, we determined whether advanced age is associated with a higher probability of harboring high-grade or high-risk disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to identify 383,039 men diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2004-2011. The percentage of patients diagnosed with low-, intermediate-, or high-risk disease or a Gleason score of 6, 7, or 8 to 10 was calculated by age range. As a secondary analysis, we examined whether this relationship was different in 2010-2011 versus 2007-2008 (before and after the 2009 publication of screening trials).

RESULTS

The probability of Gleason score 8 to 10 or high-risk disease increased significantly with increasing age. The percentage of Gleason score 8 to 10 disease among men ages 50 to 54, 70 to 74, and 80 to 84 years was 8.9%, 16.2%, and 28.5%, respectively, and the percentage of high-risk disease was 14.3%, 22.4%, and 38.7% (P < .001). There were similar relationships among men with stage T1c disease. In addition, older men experienced a significant increase in the relative probability of high-risk or high-grade disease from 2007-2008 to 2010-2011.

CONCLUSION

In this large US-based cohort, older men had a much higher probability of high-grade or high-risk prostate cancer. Physicians and patients should take into account the higher risk of more aggressive or advanced disease in older men when discussing the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen screening with healthy older men with a substantial life expectancy.

Prognostic factors for the development of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in Western countries and is associated with a considerable risk of mortality. Biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy is a relatively common finding, affecting approximately 25% of cases. The aim of our paper was to identify factors that can predict the occurrence of biochemical recurrence, so the patient can be properly counselled pre- and postoperatively. Medline review of the literatures was done followed by a group discussion on the chosen publications and their valuable influence. Preoperative serum total PSA and clinical stage, together with prostatectomy Gleason grade, tumour volume, and perineural and vascular invasions, were the most important variables found to influence outcome.

Inaccuracies in assignment of clinical stage for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent data have suggested that clinical T stage is not independently associated with biochemical recurrence of localized prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. One explanation for this lack of predictive power may be the inaccurate application of staging criteria.

METHODS

Data from men in the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) database with localized prostate cancer (clinical T1-T2) were analyzed. Correct stage was determined by digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) findings and was compared with the clinical stage reported directly by the practitioner. DRE/TRUS findings and biopsy results were evaluated to determine factors influencing staging errors. The ability of corrected stage to predict biochemical disease recurrence after prostatectomy was assessed using multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Clinical stage was assigned incorrectly in 1370 of 3875 men (35.4%). Errors more commonly resulted in patient downstaging than upstaging (55.1% vs 44.9%; P < .001). Patients with TRUS lesions were more likely to be staged incorrectly than those with abnormal DRE findings (65.8% vs 38.2%; P < .001). Biopsy laterality was found to strongly influence stage assignment. Even after correction of staging errors, there was no association noted between clinical stage and biochemical disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Errors in applying clinical staging criteria for localized prostate cancer are common. TRUS findings are frequently disregarded, and practitioners incorrectly incorporate biopsy results when assigning stage. However, staging errors do not appear to account for the inconsistent reliability of clinical stage in predicting prostate cancer outcomes. These findings further challenge the utility of a DRE-based and/or TRUS-based staging system for risk assessment of localized prostate cancer.

Minimal impact of clinical stage on prostate cancer prognosis among contemporary patients with clinically localized disease

PURPOSE

Clinical staging criteria for prostate cancer were established before the advent of widespread prostate specific antigen screening and extended biopsy templates. However, clinical stage remains commonly used in the modern era to predict prostate cancer outcomes. We hypothesize that in the context of data available from a contemporary biopsy, clinical stage no longer offers meaningful independent prognostic information for clinically localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed an analysis of men in the CaPSURE database with localized (clinical stage T1 or T2) prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy. The usefulness of clinical stage and other clinical parameters (prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score, percent of positive biopsy cores) to predict pathological outcomes and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy was assessed using univariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 4,899 men in the study cohort 51.9% were classified as having T1 disease and 48.1% T2 disease. On univariate analysis clinical stages T2b and T2c were associated with pathological outcomes but only stage T2b was associated with biochemical recurrence. In contrast prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score and percent of positive biopsy cores were strongly associated with recurrence and adverse pathological outcomes. On multivariable analysis clinical stage was of no use in determining pathological or biochemical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a multivariable model, including serum prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score and percent of positive biopsy cores, clinical stage offered no independent information in predicting biochemical recurrence. The results of this study call into question the usefulness of clinical staging criteria in risk stratifying cases of localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy.