Clinical characteristics and pathologic findings in patients eligible for active surveillance who underwent radical prostatectomy

被引:10
|
作者
Drouin, Sarah J. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Comperat, Eva [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Cussenot, Olivier [3 ,4 ]
Bitker, Marc-Olivier [1 ]
Haertig, Alain [1 ]
Roupret, Morgan [1 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] GHU EST, Assistance Publ Hop Paris, Dept Urol, Paris, France
[2] GHU EST, Assistance Publ Hop Paris, Dept Pathol, Paris, France
[3] Univ Paris 06, Fac Med Pierre & Marie Curie, Paris, France
[4] Ctr Etud & Rech Pathol Prostat, CeRePP, Paris, France
关键词
Prostate cancer; Active surveillance; Radical prostatectomy; Prostate-specific antigen; Biochemical recurrence; Prognosis; CANCER; OUTCOMES; BIOPSY; MEN; STRATEGIES; MANAGEMENT; CANDIDATES; SURVIVAL; CRITERIA; ANTIGEN;
D O I
10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.04.004
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: To analyze clinical characteristics and pathologic findings in patients eligible for active surveillance (AS) who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP). Materials and methods: We collected data from 495 patients who underwent RP during an 8-year period. We have then selected those who would have been eligible for AS according to 2 different sets of published criteria. Group I. used broader criteria: clinical stage <= T2b, Gleason score of seven or less and PSA <= 15 ng/ml. Group 2 used more restrictive criteria: age < 75 years, PSA < 10 ng/ml, clinical stage T1c or T2a, Gleason score of 6 or less, at least 10 biopsies available and a tumor length of less than 3 mm in 2 biopsy cores. Results: Overall, 207 patients (41.8%) were included in group 1 and 43 (8.7%) in group 2. The median follow-up was 31(3-108) and 32 (3-84) months in groups 1 and 2, respectively. We recorded 132 cases (63.8%) of pT2c in group 1 and 31 in group 2 (72.1%). Extracapsular extension was noted in 37 (17.9%) and 2 (4.7%) specimens from groups 1 and 2, respectively. In groups 1 and 2, a biochemical failure occurred in 47 patients (22.7%) and 6 (14%), respectively. The Gleason score at biopsy was underestimated in 54 (26%) and 9 (21%) of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Conclusion: Overall, 21% to 26% of patients eligible for AS had upgraded Gleason scores at prostatectomy and actually had a more significant disease with a potentially aggressive behavior. Therefore, based on criteria, certain tumors currently selected for AS may be significant and may require radical treatment. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:402 / 407
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Predictors of pathological upgrading and upstaging in patients eligible for active surveillance submitted to radical prostatectomy (RARP).
    Autran-Gomez, Ana Maria
    Secin, Fernando P.
    Sivaraman, Arjun
    Sanchez-Salas, Rafael
    Monzo, Juan I.
    Prapotnich, Dominic
    Barret, Eric
    Rozet, Francois
    Galiano, Marc
    Mombet, Annick
    Cathala, Nathalia
    Cathelineau, Xavier
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 33 (07)
  • [32] PREDICTORS OF A CLINICALLY SIGNIFICATIVE PROSTATE CARCINOMA IN PATIENTS WHO UNDERWENT TO RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY BUT WERE AFFECTED BY A CANCER SUITABLE FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE
    Di Franco, Carmelo Agostino
    Giliberto, Giovanni
    Porru, Daniele
    Cebrelli, Tiziano
    Rovereto, Bruno
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2018, 38 (04) : 2500 - 2500
  • [33] THE RATE OF ADVERSE DISEASE AND BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN PATIENTS ELIGIBLE FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE
    Schmitges, Jan
    Heinzer, Hans
    Budaeus, Lars
    Tennstedt, Pierre
    Hansen, Jens
    Quoc-Dien Trinh
    Schlomm, Thorsten
    Steuber, Thomas
    Salomon, Georg
    Weissbach, Lothar
    Huland, Hartwig
    Graefen, Markus
    Chun, Felix K.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 187 (04): : E403 - E403
  • [34] Pathological findings following radical prostatectomy in patients who are candidates for active surveillance: impact of varying PSA levels
    Kang, Dong Il
    Jang, Thomas L.
    Jeong, Jeongyun
    Choi, Eun Young
    Johnson, Kelly
    Lee, Dong Hyeon
    Kim, Wun-Jae
    Kim, Isaac Yi
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF ANDROLOGY, 2011, 13 (06) : 838 - 841
  • [35] Radical Prostatectomy Findings in Patients in Whom Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer Fails
    Duffield, Amy S.
    Lee, Thomas K.
    Miyamoto, Hiroshi
    Carter, H. Ballantine
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 182 (05): : 2274 - 2278
  • [36] Pathological outcomes of Japanese men eligible for active surveillance after radical prostatectomy
    Takahiro Inoue
    Hidefumi Kinoshita
    Hidekazu Inui
    Yoshihiro Komai
    Masayuki Nakagawa
    Naoki Oguchi
    Gen Kawa
    Motohiko Sugi
    Chisato Ohe
    Chika Miyasaka
    Yorika Nakano
    Noriko Sakaida
    Yoshiko Uemura
    Tadashi Matsuda
    International Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2014, 19 : 379 - 383
  • [37] CANDIDATES FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE WHO UNDERWENT ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY; PATHOLOGICAL SPECIMEN CHARACTERISTICS.
    Collette, E. R. P.
    Engel, R. P.
    Kliffen, M.
    van den Ouden, D.
    Klaver, O. S.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 110 : 74 - 75
  • [38] Pathological outcomes of Japanese men eligible for active surveillance after radical prostatectomy
    Inoue, Takahiro
    Kinoshita, Hidefumi
    Inui, Hidekazu
    Komai, Yoshihiro
    Nakagawa, Masayuki
    Oguchi, Naoki
    Kawa, Gen
    Sugi, Motohiko
    Ohe, Chisato
    Miyasaka, Chika
    Nakano, Yorika
    Sakaida, Noriko
    Uemura, Yoshiko
    Matsuda, Tadashi
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 19 (02) : 379 - 383
  • [39] PATHOLOGICAL FINDINGS AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN MEN ELIGIBLE FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE (FRENCH TRIAL SURACAP): IS THE MISCLASSIFICATION RATE ACCEPTABLE?
    Xylinas, Evanguelos
    Durand, Xavier
    Ploussard, Guillaume
    Campeggi, Alexandre
    Allory, Yves
    Vordos, Dimitri
    Hoznek, Andras
    De la Taille, Alexandre
    Abbou, Clement-Claude
    Salomon, Laurent
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 185 (04): : E721 - E722
  • [40] Pathological findings after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance (French trial SURACAP): Is the misclassification rate acceptable?
    Xylinas, E.
    Durand, X.
    Campeggi, A.
    Ploussard, G.
    Allory, Y.
    Vordos, D.
    Hoznek, A.
    De La Taille, A.
    Abbou, C. -C.
    Salomon, L.
    PROGRES EN UROLOGIE, 2011, 21 (04): : 264 - 269