Histological Findings in Very Low Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Managed with Radical Prostatectomy
HTML Full Text (Inglês)
PDF (Espanhol)
XML (Espanhol)

Palavras-chave

very low risk prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, tumor stage

Como Citar

Histological Findings in Very Low Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Managed with Radical Prostatectomy. (2017). Universitas Medica, 58(3). https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.umed58-3.risk
Almetrics
 
Dimensions
 

Google Scholar
 
Search GoogleScholar

Resumo

Objectives: To describe the histological findings in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) clinically classified as very low risk who underwent treatment with radical prostatectomy (RP). Material and methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted. Clinical records of patients who underwent RP between 2007-2015 who met Epstein criteria for very low risk disease were reviewed. Histological diagnosis was described and analyzed to determine if such criteria predicted very low risk. Results: A total of 609 records were reviewed; 83 (13.6%) met Epstein’s criteria. Mean age was 59 (SD±7) years and median PSA at diagnosis was 5.4 ng/dl (IQR 4.3 – 6.8). Pathology showed a median tumor volume of 4% (IQR 1 – 10%). Gleason score was 3+3 in 55 (66.3%) cases, but 28 (33.7%) were reclassified to a greater score. Two (2.4%) patients were reclassified as pT3a, 80 (96.4%) as pT2 and 1 (1.2%) was found to be pT0. In those subjected to pelvic lymphadenectomy (42.2%) no positive lymph nodes were found. Conclusions: Up to one-third of the patients clinically classified with very low risk PCa had a greater Gleason score. Only 3% had locally advanced tumors, which is comparable to previous studies. Epstein’s criteria seem to be adequate in predicting organ-confined disease.

HTML Full Text (Inglês)
PDF (Espanhol)
XML (Espanhol)

Schröder FH. Prostate cancer: To screen? BMJ. 1993;306:407-8.

Venderos Lionne DF, Roobol M, De Hoogh A. Active surveillance for prostate cáncer: A legal perspective. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2014;2(4):323-31.

Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, Jethava V, Zhang L. et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):272-7.

Schroder F, Roach M, Scardino P. Management of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2605-9.

Tosoian JJ, Carter HB, Lepor A, Loeb S. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13(4):205-15.

Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, et al. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1994;271:368-74.

Wein A, Kavoussi L, Partin A, Peters C. Campbell-Walsh urology. 10 th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2012.

Klotz L. Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: Who, how and why? Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2007;4:692-8.

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(11):969-74.

Laurence. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: Trials and tribulations. World J Urol. 2008;26:437-42.

Parker C. Active surveillance: towards a new paradigm in the management of early prostate cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2004;5:101-6.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer [internet]. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/prostate.pdf

American Urological Association. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer [internet]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/documents/education/clinical-

guidance/Prostate-Cancer.pdf

Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J, et al. Validation of the contemporary Epstein criteria for insignificant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol. 2008;54:1306-13.

Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ, et al. Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol. 1998;160:2407-11.

Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Wheeler TM, et al. Counseling men with prostate cancer: a nomogram for predicting the presence of small, moderately differentiated confined tumors. J Urol. 2003;170:1792-7.

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.

Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors: A contemporary analysis. Cancer. 2004;101:2001-5.

Beauval JB, Ploussard G, Soulié M, Pfister C, Vanagt S, Vincendeau S, Larue S. Pathologic findings in radical prostatectomy specimens from patients eligible for active surveillance with highly selective criteria: a multicenter study. J. Urology. 2012;80:656-60.

Tosoian J, Sundi D, Trock BJ, Landis P, Epstein J, Schaeffer EM. Pathologic outcomes in favorable-risk prostate cancer: comparative analysis of men electing active surveillance and immediate surgery. Eur Urol. 2016;69:575-81.

Kulkarni JN, Valsangkar RS, Jadhav YR, Singh DP. Impact of Gleason pattern up gradation after radical prostatectomy for carcinoma prostate patients with low biopsy score (≤6). J Cancer Res Ther. 2011;7:459-62.

Cookson MS, Fleshner NE, Soloway SM, Fair WR. Correlation between Gleason score of needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimen: accuracy and clinical implications. J Urol. 1997;157:559-62.

Chang JM, Lee HJ, Lee SE, et al. Pictorial review: unusual tumors involving the prostate: radiological-pathological findings. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:907-15.

Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer in a contemporary cohort. Cancer. 2008;112:2664-70.

Villers A, Lemaitre L, Haffner J, Puech P. Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: Implications for local therapy and active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19:274-82.

Lindenberg L, AhLman M, Turkbey B, Mena E, Choyke P. Advancement of MR and PET/MR in Prostate Cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46(6):536-43.

Bouchelouche K, Choyke PL. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in prostate cancer: A step toward personalized medicine. Curr Opin Oncol. 2016;28:216-21.

Esta revista científica se encuentra registrada bajo la licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional. Por lo tanto, esta obra se puede reproducir, distribuir y comunicar públicamente en formato digital, siempre que se reconozca el nombre de los autores y a la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Se permite citar, adaptar, transformar, autoarchivar, republicar y crear a partir del material, para cualquier finalidad (incluso comercial), siempre que se reconozca adecuadamente la autoría, se proporcione un enlace a la obra original y se indique si se han realizado cambios. La Pontificia Universidad Javeriana no retiene los derechos sobre las obras publicadas y los contenidos son responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores, quienes conservan sus derechos morales, intelectuales, de privacidad y publicidad.

El aval sobre la intervención de la obra (revisión, corrección de estilo, traducción, diagramación) y su posterior divulgación se otorga mediante una licencia de uso y no a través de una cesión de derechos, lo que representa que la revista y la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana se eximen de cualquier responsabilidad que se pueda derivar de una mala práctica ética por parte de los autores. En consecuencia de la protección brindada por la licencia de uso, la revista no se encuentra en la obligación de publicar retractaciones o modificar la información ya publicada, a no ser que la errata surja del proceso de gestión editorial. La publicación de contenidos en esta revista no representa regalías para los contribuyentes.