Importance of prostate volume in the stratification of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer

International Journal of Urology

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 555-561

  Moschini, Marco ^a,b   Gandaglia, Giorgio ^a   Suardi, Nazareno ^a   Fossati, Nicola ^a   Cucchiara, Vito ^a   Damiano, Rocco ^b   Cantiello, Francesco ^b   Shariat, Shahrokh F ^c   Montorsi, Francesco ^a   Briganti, Alberto ^a  

^a SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY MAGNA GRAECIA OF CATANZARO   (Italy)

^c MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Biochemical recurrence; Prostate cancer; Prostate volume; Radical prostatectomy; Risk groups

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC HORMONE AGONISTS AND ANTAGONISTS; PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE; CANCER ADJUVANT THERAPY; CANCER HORMONE THERAPY; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SIZE; CANCER SURGERY; CHARLSON COMORBIDITY INDEX; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; INTERMEDIATE RISK PATIENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; OUTCOME VARIABLE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE VOLUME; PROSTATECTOMY; SEMINAL VESICLE; SURVIVAL RATE; BLOOD; MIDDLE AGED; ORGAN SIZE; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECURRENT DISEASE; RISK ASSESSMENT;

AGED; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORGAN SIZE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RECURRENCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVIVAL RATE;

EID: 84930319776     PISSN: 09198172     EISSN: 14422042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/iju.12748     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2014; 64: 9-29.
2. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur. Urol. 2014; 65: 124-37.
3. 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: 969-74.
4. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001; 58: 843-8.
5. Chun FK-H, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur. Urol. 2006; 49: 820-6.
6. Lughezzani G, Briganti A, Karakiewicz PI et al. Predictive and prognostic models in radical prostatectomy candidates: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur. Urol. 2010; 58: 687-700.
7. Jung J-W, Lee JK, Hong SK, Byun S-S, Lee SE. Stratification of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014; doi:10.1111/bju.12703.
8. Wong L-M, Toi A, Van der Kwast T et al. Regular transition zone biopsy during active surveillance for prostate cancer may improve detection of pathological progression. J. Urol. 2014; 192: 1088-93.
9. Briganti A, Chun FK-H, Suardi N et al. Prostate volume and adverse prostate cancer features: fact not artifact. Eur. J. Cancer 2007; 43: 2669-77.
10. Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA et al. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005; 23: 7546-54.
11. 3 predicts for a favorable outcome after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Urology 1998; 52: 631-6.
12. Yashi M, Mizuno T, Yuki H et al. Prostate volume and biopsy tumor length are significant predictors for classical and redefined insignificant cancer on prostatectomy specimens in Japanese men with favorable pathologic features on biopsy. BMC Urol. 2014; 14: 43.
13. Foley CL, Bott SRJ, Thomas K, Parkinson MC, Kirby RS. A large prostate at radical retropubic prostatectomy does not adversely affect cancer control, continence or potency rates. BJU Int. 2003; 92: 370-4.
14. Davidson DD, Koch MO, Lin H, Jones TD, Biermann K, Cheng L. Does the size matter?: prostate weight does not predict PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2010; 133: 662-8.
15. Noldus J, Graefen M, Haese A, Henke RP, Hammerer P, Huland H. Stage migration in clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2000; 38: 74-8.
16. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur. Urol. 2012; 61: 1019-24.
17. Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur. Urol. 2012; 61: 480-7.
18. Marker PC, Donjacour AA, Dahiya R, Cunha GR. Hormonal, cellular, and molecular control of prostatic development. Dev. Biol. 2003; 253: 165-74.
19. Greene FL. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: updating the strategies in cancer staging. Bull. Am. Coll. Surg. 2002; 87: 13-5.
20. Hong SK, Poon BY, Sjoberg DD, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Prostate size and adverse pathologic features in men undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 2014; 84: 153-7.
21. Kozminski MA, Palapattu GS, Mehra R et al. Understanding the relationship between tumor size, gland size, and disease aggressiveness in men with prostate cancer. Urology 2014; 84: 373-9.
22. Davies JD, Aghazadeh MA, Phillips S et al. Prostate size as a predictor of Gleason score upgrading in patients with low risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2011; 186: 2221-7.
23. Massengill JC, Sun L, Moul JW et al. Pretreatment total testosterone level predicts pathological stage in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2003; 169: 1670-5.
24. Luo J, Duggan DJ, Chen Y et al. Human prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia: molecular dissection by gene expression profiling. Cancer Res. 2001; 61: 4683-8.
25. Keane FK, Chen M-H, Zhang D et al. The likelihood of death from prostate cancer in men with favorable or unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Cancer 2014; 120: 1787-93.
26. Ploussard G, Isbarn H, Briganti A et al. Can we expand active surveillance criteria to include biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer? A multi-institutional study of 2, 323 patients. Urol. Oncol. 2014; doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.007.
27. Magheli A, Rais-Bahrami S, Trock BJ et al. Prostate specific antigen versus prostate specific antigen density as a prognosticator of pathological characteristics and biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2008; 179: 1780-4; discussion 1784.
28. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Yu X, Antenor JAV, Suarez BK, Catalona WJ. Prostate specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness. J. Urol. 2007; 177: 505-9.
29. Loeb S, Bruinsma SM, Nicholson J et al. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. Eur. Urol. 2014; doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.010.