Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2011 / Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 4

Patolojik T2 evre prostat kanserli hastaların alt grup evrelemesi yapılmalı mıdır?

Is substaging necessary in patients with pathological stage T2 prostate cancer?

Pages
288–293
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is not convenient to use the biopsy tumor percentage in order to predict tumor volumes or pathological subgroups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To determine whether pathological T2 subgroups of prostate cancer can be predicted using preoperative data and to investigate whether there is any difference between pathological T2 subgroups in terms of biochemical recurrence.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in our clinic between 2001 and 2010 and who had a tumor conÀned to the prostate were classiÀed into pathological T2 subgroups according to the 1992/2002 and 1997 TNM staging system.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is not convenient to use the biopsy tumor percentage in order to predict tumor volumes or pathological subgroups.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether pathological T2 subgroups of prostate cancer can be predicted using preoperative data and to investigate whether there is any difference between pathological T2 subgroups in terms of biochemical recurrence. Materials and methods: Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in our clinic between 2001 and 2010 and who had a tumor conÀned to the prostate were classiÀed into pathological T2 subgroups according to the 1992/2002 and 1997 TNM staging system. These patients were compared in terms of clinical stage, preoperative prostate-speciÀ c antigen (PSA), biopsy tumor percentage, biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason score, and biochemical recurrence. Results: According to the 1992/200 2 TNM staging system, the clinical stages, biopsy Gleason scores, and tumor size of the pT2 subgroups were different, while the biopsy tumor percentage, preoperative PSA, and prostatectomy Gleason scores of the pT2 subgroups were similar. There was no correlation between biopsy tumor percentage and tumor volume. PSA recurred in 1, 1, and 2 patients in the pT2a, pT2b, and pT2c subgroups, respectively. According to the 1997 TNM classiÀ cation, the clinical stage, biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason scores, biopsy tumor percentage and preoperative PSA of pT2 subgroups were similar, while the tumor volumes differed among the pT2 subgroups. Conclusion: It is impossible to predict T2 subgroups using preoperative data. There is no difference among groups in terms of the rates of biochemical recurrence. It is not convenient to use the biopsy tumor percentage in order to predict tumor volumes or pathological subgroups.

Özet

Amaç: Prostat kanserinde patolojik T2 alt evresinin ameliyat öncesi verilerle öngörülüp öngörülemeyeceğini ve T2 alt evreleri arasında biyokimyasal nüks açısından fark olup olmadığını araştırmak. Gereç ve yöntem: 2001-2010 yılları arasında kliniğimizde radikal prostatektomi yapılan hastalardan prostata sınırlı hastalığı olanlar 1992/2002 ve 1997 TNM sınıflamasına göre patolojik T2 alt evrelerine ayrılarak klinik evre, ameliyat öncesi prostat spesifik antijen (PSA), biyopsi tümör yüzdesi, tümör hacmi, biyopsi ve prostatektomi Gleason skoru ve biyokimyasal nüks bakımından karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: 1992/2002 TNM sınıflamasına göre pT2 alt gruplarının klinik evreleri, biyopsi Gleason skorları ve tümör hacimleri farklı olup; biyopsi tümör yüzdeleri, ameliyat öncesi PSA ve prostatektomi Gleason skorları benzer idi. Biyopsi tümör yüzdesi ile tümör hacmi arasında korelasyon bulunmadı. pT2a grubunda 1, pT2b grubunda 1 ve pT2c grubunda 2 hastada PSA nüksü saptandı. 1997 TNM sınıflamasına göre pT2 alt gruplarının klinik evreleri, biyopsi ve prostatektomi Gleason skorları, biyopsi tümör yüzdeleri, ameliyat öncesi PSA değerleri benzer, tümör hacimleri ise farklı idi. Sonuç: Ameliyat öncesi veriler ile patolojik T2 alt gruplarını öngörmek mümkün değildir. Biyokimyasal nüks oranları bakımından gruplar arasında farklılık saptanmamıştır. Biyopsi tümör yüzdesinin, tümör hacmi ve patolojik alt grup öngörüsünde kullanılması uygun değildir.

🔖

Cite This Article

SOYDAN, H., ATEŞ, F., KÜÇÜKODACI, Z., AKYOL, İ., KARADEMİR, K., BAYKAL, K. V. (2011). Patolojik T2 evre prostat kanserli hastaların alt grup evrelemesi yapılmalı mıdır?. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 37 - Sayı: 4, 288–293. https://ajindex.com/articles/328083

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Gallina A, Chun FK, Suardi N, Eastham JA, Perrotte P, Graefen M, et al. Comparison of stage migration patterns between Europe and the USA: an analysis of 11 350 men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008;101:1513-8.
  2. Heidenreich A, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason MD, Matveev V, Mottet N, et al. Guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology Guidelines, 2011. p. 10. van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, Epstein JI, Griffiths D, Humphrey PA, et al. ISUP Prostate Cancer Group. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol 2011;24:16-25. Bostwick DG. Staging prostate cancer-1987: current methods and limitations. Eur Urol 1997;32:2-14.
  3. Hoedemaeker RF, Rietbergen JB, Kranse R, van der Kwast TH, Schröder FH. Comparison of pathologic characteristics of T1c and non-T1c cancers detected in a population-based screening study, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. World J Urol 1997;15:339-45.
  4. Baykal K, Albayrak S, Kalc× E, Y×ld×r×m û, únal H, Önol Y. Prostat kanserinde patolojik evre ile klinik evre, PSA, Gleason grade aras×ndaki iliüki: GATA Haydarpaüa deneyimleri. Turkish Journal of Urology 1995;21:206-11.
  5. Freedland SJ, Partin AW, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy in men with pathologic organ- confined disease: pT2a versus pT2b. Cancer 2004;100:1646-9.
  6. Hong SK, Han BK, Chung JS, Park DS, Jeong SJ, Byun SS, et al. Evaluation of pT2 subdivisions in the TNM staging system for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008;102:1092-6.
  7. DeCastro GJ, McCann T, Benson MC, McKiernan JM. Pathologic T2 stage subgroups and recurrence-free survival after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2008;72:1214-8.
  8. Freedland SJ, Presti JC Jr, Terris MK, Kane CJ, Aronson WJ, Dorey F, et al. Improved clinical staging system combining biopsy laterality and TNM stage for men with T1c and T2 prostate cancer: results from the SEARCH database. J Urol 2003;169:2129-35.
  9. Han M, Walsh PC, Partin AW, Rodriguez R. Ability of the 1992 and 1997 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging systems for prostate cancer to predict progression-free survival after radical prostatectomy for stage T2 disease. J Urol 2000;164:89-92.
  10. Cagiannos I, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI, Ohori M, Eastham JA, Rabbani F, et al. Analysis of clinical stage T2 prostate cancer: do current subclassificatio