Percentage of high-grade tumour volume does not meaningfully improve prediction of early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy compared with Gleason score

BJU International

Volumn 113, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 399-407

  Hansen, Jens ^a   Bianchi, Marco ^b,c   Sun, Maxine ^b   Rink, Michael ^a   Castiglione, Fabio ^c   Abdollah, Firas ^c   Steuber, Thomas ^a   Ahyai, Sascha A ^a   Steurer, Stefan ^a   Göbel, Cosima ^a   Freschi, Massimo ^c   Montorsi, Francesco ^c   Shariat, Shahrokh F ^d   Fisch, Margit ^a   Graefen, Markus ^a   Karakiewicz, Pierre I ^b   Briganti, Alberto ^c   Chun, Felix K H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

^b CENTRE HOSPITALIER DE L UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^d WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

biochemical recurrence; high risk; percentage high grade tumour volume; prostate cancer; tumour volume

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE FREE SURVIVAL; CANCER GRADING; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; PROSTATECTOMY; RISK FACTOR; TUMOR VOLUME;

BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; HIGH RISK; PERCENTAGE HIGH-GRADE TUMOUR VOLUME; PROSTATE CANCER; TUMOUR VOLUME;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84896729108     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12424     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Budaus L, Spethmann J, Isbarn H, et al. Inverse stage migration in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results of 8916 European patients treated within the last decade. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1256-1261
2. Meng MV, Elkin EP, Latini DM, Duchane J, Carroll PR,. Treatment of patients with high risk localized prostate cancer: results from cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor (CaPSURE). J Urol 2005; 173: 1557-1561 (Pubitemid 40528444)
3. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61-71
4. Van Poppel H, Joniau S,. An analysis of radical prostatectomy in advanced stage and high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 253-259 (Pubitemid 350296585)
5. Loeb S, Smith ND, Roehl KA, Catalona WJ,. Intermediate-term potency, continence, and survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically highrisk or locally advanced prostate cancer. Urology 2007; 69: 1170-1175 (Pubitemid 46891592)
6. Loeb S, Schaeffer EM, Trock BJ, Epstein JI, Humphreys EB, Walsh PC,. What are the outcomes of radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer? Urology 2010; 76: 710-714
7. Lewinshtein D, Teng B, Valencia A, Gibbons R, Porter CR,. The long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy of patients with pathologic Gleason 8-10 disease. Adv Urol 2012; 2012: 428098
8. Abdollah F, Sun M, Thuret R, et al. A competing-risks analysis of survival after alternative treatment modalities for prostate cancer patients: 1988-2006. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 88-95
9. Froehner M, Koch R, Litz RJ, Hakenberg OW, Wirth MP,. Which patients are at the highest risk of dying from competing causes ≤10 years after radical prostatectomy? BJU Int 2012; 110: 206-210
10. Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, Chan DW, Pearson JD, Walsh PC,. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999; 281: 1591-1597 (Pubitemid 29211767)
11. Freedland SJ, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. Risk of prostate cancerspecific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2005; 294: 433-439 (Pubitemid 41124175)
12. Walz J, Chun FK, Klein EA, et al. Nomogram predicting the probability of early recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2009; 181: 601-608
13. Hong MK, Namdarian B, Corcoran NM, et al. Prostate tumour volume is an independent predictor of early biochemical recurrence in a high risk radical prostatectomy subgroup. Pathology 2011; 43: 138-142
14. Bastian PJ, Gonzalgo ML, Aronson WJ, et al. Clinical and pathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer patients with a preoperative Gleason sum of 8 to 10. Cancer 2006; 107: 1265-1272 (Pubitemid 44452775)
15. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969-974 (Pubitemid 28445094)
16. McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA,. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 1988; 12: 897-906 (Pubitemid 19011040)
17. Chun FK, Briganti A, Jeldres C, et al. Tumour volume and high grade tumour volume are the best predictors of pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43: 536-543 (Pubitemid 46177590)
18. Gleason DF,. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 125-128
19. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL,. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29: 1228-1242 (Pubitemid 41232997)
20. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edn. New York: Springer, 2002
21. Mazumdar M, Glassman JR,. Categorizing a prognostic variable: review of methods, code for easy implementation and applications to decision-making about cancer treatments. Stat Med 2000; 19: 113-132 (Pubitemid 30051256)
22. Briganti A, Joniau S, Gontero P, et al. Identifying the best candidate for radical prostatectomy among patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 584-592
23. Chung BI, Tarin TV, Ferrari M, Brooks JD,. Comparison of prostate cancer tumor volume and percent cancer in prediction of biochemical recurrence and cancer specific survival. Urol Oncol 2011; 29: 314-318
24. Kikuchi E, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM, Slawin KM, Ohori M,. Is tumor volume an independent prognostic factor in clinically localized prostate cancer? J Urol 2004; 172: 508-511 (Pubitemid 38900191)
25. Ramos CG, Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Humphrey PA, Catalona WJ,. Percent carcinoma in prostatectomy specimen is associated with risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with pathologically organ confined prostate cancer. J Urol 2004; 172: 137-140 (Pubitemid 41615055)
26. Rampersaud EN, Sun L, Moul JW, Madden J, Freedland SJ,. Percent tumor involvement and risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2008; 180: 571-576
27. Salomon L, Levrel O, Anastasiadis AG, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors. Eur Urol 2003; 43: 39-44 (Pubitemid 36134314)
28. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP,. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993; 71 (Suppl.): 933-938 (Pubitemid 23049614)
29. Porten SP, Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR,. The independent value of tumour volume in a contemporary cohort of men treated with radical prostatectomy for clinically localized disease. BJU Int 2010; 105: 472-475