Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2012 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 3

Prostat biyopsisinde kanser saptanan hastalarda prostat boyutu ve hasta yaşının prognostik faktörlerle ilişkisi

The relationship between prostate size, patient age and prognostic factors in patients with prostate biopsy cancer detected

Pages
121–125
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)

Therefore, non-cancer causes of elevated PSA and the use of PSA derivatives should be considered to increase the detection rate of cancer in these patients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In this study, we investigated the relationship between prostate size and age with prognostic factors in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasonography-guided (TRUSG) prostate biopsy because of high prostate specific antigen (PSA) values.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: A total of 1133 patients underwent 10-quadrant TRUSG-guided prostate biopsy due to high PSA values at our clinic between 2001-2012.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, non-cancer causes of elevated PSA and the use of PSA derivatives should be considered to increase the detection rate of cancer in these patients.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001-2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we investigated the relationship between prostate size and age with prognostic factors in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasonography-guided (TRUSG) prostate biopsy because of high prostate specific antigen (PSA) values. Materials and methods: A total of 1133 patients underwent 10-quadrant TRUSG-guided prostate biopsy due to high PSA values at our clinic between 2001-2012. Cases with prostate cancer were divided by age and prostate size. Patients were classified into 3 groups according to age (<60, 60-70 and >70 years) and prostate size (<40 cc, 40-70 cc and >70 cc). We evaluated the relationship between prostate size and age with prognostic factors in patients with diagnosed prostate cancer. Cases with prostate cancer classified according to age were compared in terms of PSA, PSA density, Gleason score, positive core percentage, average highest positive core tumor percentage and perineural invasion. Cases classified according to prostate size were compared in terms of PSA, Gleason score, positive core percentage, average highest positive core tumor percentage and perineural invasion. Results: A total of 1133 patients underwent prostate biopsy. Prostate adenocarcinoma was detected in 326 patients (28.7%), and benign prostate hyperplasia was detected in 808 (71.3%) patients. The detection rate of prostate cancer in patients <60 years of age and >70 years of age was 18.2% and 40.7%, respectively (p<0.001). The prostate cancer detection rate in patients with a prostate size <40 cc and >70 cc was 39.2% and 16.1%, respectively (p<0.001). PSA, PSA density, Gleason score, positive core percentage, average highest positive core tumor percentage and perineural invasion were increased significantly in older prostate cancer patients (p<0.05). Although PSA increased with prostate size (p<0.001), Gleason score, positive core percentage, average highest positive core tumor percentage and perineural invasion were not correlated with prostate size. Conclusion: While the detection rate of prostate cancer increased with age, a negative correlation was observed with prostate size in patients who underwent prostate biopsy due to high PSA values. It was clear that poor prognostic factors were related to age, but that was not shown with prostate size except for PSA. Prostate cancer detection rate was lower in younger patients who underwent prostate biopsy due to high PSA levels. Therefore, non-cancer causes of elevated PSA and the use of PSA derivatives should be considered to increase the detection rate of cancer in these patients.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada prostat spesifik antijen yüksekliği (PSA) nedeniyle transrektal ulrasonografi eşliğinde prostat biyopsisi yapılan hastalarda prostat boyutu ve hasta yaşının prognostik faktörlerle ilişkisi araştırmayı amaçladık. Gereç ve yöntem: Prostat spesifik antijen yüksekliği nedeniyle kliniğimizde 2001-2012 yılları arasında 1133 hastaya transrektal ultrasonografi eşliğinde periferik ve santral zondan olmak üzere 10 kor prostat biyopsisi yapıldı. Prostat adenokarsinomu saptanan olgular, yaş ve boyut açısından alt gruplara ayrıldı. Hastalar 70 olmak üzere yaş gruplarına ayrıldı. Prostat boyutu açısından hastalar 70 cc olmak üzere üç gruba ayrıldı. Prostat kanseri saptanan olgularda yaşın ve prostat boyutunun prognostik faktörlerle ilişkisi değerlendirildi. Yaş gruplarına göre sınıflandırılmış prostat kanserli olgular PSA, PSA dansitesi (PSAD), gleason skoru, pozitif kor yüzdesi, ortalama maksimum kanser yüzdesi ve perinöral invazyon açısından karşılaştırıldı. Prostat boyutuna göre gruplandırılmış prostat kanserli olgular total PSA, gleason skoru, pozitif kor yüzdesi, ortalama maksimum kanser yüzdesi ve perinöral invazyon açısından karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Biyopsi yapılan 1133 hastanın 326’sında, (%28.7) prostat adenokarsinom saptanırken, 808 (%71.3) hastada benign prostat hiperplazisi saptandı. Yaşı 70 olanlarda bu oran %40.7 idi (p 70 cc olanlarda bu oran %16.1 idi. (p<0.001). Prostat kanserli olgularda yaşla birlikte total PSA, PSAD, gleason skoru, pozitif kor yüzdesi, ortalama maksimum kanser yüzdesi ve perinöral invazyonun anlamlı oranda arttığı saptandı (p<0.05). Prostat boyutu artıkça PSA artarken (p<0.001), prostat boyutu ile gleason skoru, pozitif kor yüzdesi, ortalama maksimum kanser yüzdesi ve perinöral invazyonun arasında ilişki gözlenmedi. Sonuç: Prostat spesifik antijen yüksekliği nedeniyle prostat biyopsisi alınan hastalarda yaşla birlikte prostat kanseri saptama oranı artarken, prostat boyutu ile kanser saptama arasında negatif kolerasyon gözlenmiştir. Kötü prognostik faktörlerin yaşla ilişkişi net bir şekilde gösterilirken, prostat boyutunda bu ilişki PSA dışında gözlenmemiştir. PSA yüksekliği nedeniyle prostat biyopsisi yapılan genç hastalarda prostat kanseri saptanma oranı düşük bulunmuştur. Bu nedenle PSA yüksekliğine neden olan kanser dışı nedenler ve PSA deriveleri göz önünde bulundurularak bu hastalarda kanser saptanma oranı artırılabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖRGEL, S. N., ŞEFİK, E., BALCI, U., GİRGİN, M. C., DİNÇEL, Ç. (2012). Prostat biyopsisinde kanser saptanan hastalarda prostat boyutu ve hasta yaşının prognostik faktörlerle ilişkisi. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 3, 121–125. https://ajindex.com/articles/328903

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Boyle P, Dresler C. Preventing the lung cancer epidemic. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1565-6 2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:71-96. 3. Dinçel Ç. Üroonkoloji, Prostat kanserinde biyopsi. 1.Baskı.
  2. İzmir, Meta Basım Matbaacılık, 2007, p 45. 4. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989;142:71-4. 5. Epstein JI. The role of perineural invasion and other biopsy characteristics as prognostic markers for localized prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 1998;16:124-8. 6. Aus G, Abbou CC, Bolla M, Heidenreich A, Schmid HP, van Poppel H, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2005;48:546-51. 7. Makarov DV, Sanderson H, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Gleason score 7 prostate cancer on needle biopsy: is the prognostic difference in Gleason scores 4 + 3 and 3 + 4 independent of the number of involved cores? J Urol 2002;167:2440-2. 8. 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. 9. Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, Epstein JI, Walsh PC. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am 2001;28:555-65. 10. Pisansky TM, Kahn MJ, Rasp GM, Cha SS, Haddock MG, Bostwick DG. A multiple prognostic index predictive of disease outcome after irradiation for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 1997;79:337-44. 11. Draisma G, Postma R, Schröder FH, van der Kwast TH, de Koning HJ. Gleason score, age and screening: modeling dedifferentiation in prostate cancer. Int J Cancer 2006;15:2366-71. 12. Yarney J, Vanderpuye V, Mensah J. Clinicopathologic features and determinants of Gleason score of prostate cancer in Ghanaian men. Urol Oncol 2011 Mar 25. [Epub ahead of print] 13. Briganti A, Chun FK, Suardi N, Gallina A, Walz J, Graefen M, et al. Prostate volume and adverse prostate cancer features: fact not artifact. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:2669-77. 14. Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Amling CL, 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. 15. Kulkarni GS, Al-Azab R, Lockwood G, Toi A, Evans A, Tra