Lower prostate specific antigen outcome than expected following radical prostatectomy in patients with high grade prostate cancer and a prostatic specific antigen level of 4 ng./ml. or less

被引:34
作者
D'Amico, AV
Chen, MH
Malkowicz, SB
Whittington, R
Renshaw, AA
Tomaszewski, JE
Samofalov, Y
Wein, A
Richie, JP
机构
[1] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Radiat Oncol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Pathol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Urol, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] Dana Farber Canc Inst, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[5] Worcester Polytech Inst, Dept Math, Worcester, MA 01609 USA
[6] Hosp Univ Penn, Dept Urol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[7] Hosp Univ Penn, Dept Radiat Oncol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[8] Hosp Univ Penn, Dept Pathol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
prostatic neoplasms; prostate-specific antigen; testosterone; treatment outcome;
D O I
10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65076-8
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: We report the estimates of 10-year prostate specific antigen (PSA) outcome following radical prostatectomy in patients with or without grade 4 or 5 disease in the needle biopsy or prostatectomy specimen stratified by the presenting PSA level. Materials and Methods: From 1989 to 2001, 2,254 patients treated with radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer comprised the study cohort. PSA outcome was estimated using the actuarial method of Kaplan and Meier, and was stratified by the presenting PSA level and needle biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason score. Results: The 10-year estimates of PSA outcome declined significantly (p less than or equal to 0.002) for patients with biopsy or prostatectomy Gleason score 6 or less as the presenting PSA level increased. This trend was observed for biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason score 7 or higher except for the PSA 4 or less group which did significantly worse (46% versus 62%, p = 0.03) compared to the PSA greater than 4 to 10 ng./ml. group. This finding may be explained by a low serum free testosterone level and the presence of a significantly higher proportion of prostatectomy Gleason score 8 to 10 disease (25% versus 16%, p = 0.03) in the PSA 4 or less versus greater than 4 to 10 ng./ml. group. Conclusions: Patients with Gleason grade 4 or 5 disease in the radical prostatectomy specimen and a presenting PSA of 4 ng./ml. or less may be androgen deficient and have a significantly lower estimate of 10-year PSA outcome then expected based on the presenting PSA level.
引用
收藏
页码:2025 / 2030
页数:6
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1992, MANUAL STAGING CANC
[2]  
[Anonymous], UROLOGIC PATHOLOGY
[3]  
Barry MJ, 2001, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V91, P2302, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(20010615)91:12<2302::AID-CNCR1262>3.3.CO
[4]  
2-G
[5]  
BEAHRS OH, 1997, MANUAL STAGING CANC
[6]   Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer [J].
D'Amico, AV ;
Whittington, R ;
Malkowicz, SB ;
Fondurulia, J ;
Chen, MH ;
Kaplan, I ;
Beard, CJ ;
Tomaszewski, JE ;
Renshaw, AA ;
Wein, A ;
Coleman, CN .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1999, 17 (01) :168-172
[7]   Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: Results from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor database [J].
Grossfeld, GD ;
Chang, JJ ;
Broering, JM ;
Li, JP ;
Lubeck, DP ;
Flanders, SC ;
Carroll, PR .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2001, 165 (03) :851-856
[8]   Is low serum free testosterone a marker for high grade prostate cancer? [J].
Hoffman, MA ;
DeWolf, WC ;
Morgentaler, A .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 163 (03) :824-827
[9]   NONPARAMETRIC-ESTIMATION FROM INCOMPLETE OBSERVATIONS [J].
KAPLAN, EL ;
MEIER, P .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 1958, 53 (282) :457-481
[10]   A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer [J].
Kattan, MW ;
Eastham, JA ;
Stapleton, AMF ;
Wheeler, TM ;
Scardino, PT .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1998, 90 (10) :766-771