Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2019 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1

Does extent of prostate-specific antigen fluctuation can predict Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients?

Pages
42–48
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)

In multivariate analysis, digital rectal examination positivity, the presence of twopositive cores and low PSA fluctuation rate were found to be significant predictors of GS upgrading.Conclusion: Low PSA fluctuation rate is associated with higher GS upgrading.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) fluctuation on Gleason score (GS) upgrading, disease upstaging, oncological outcomes in low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients who underwentrobot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) and met the inclusion criteria for active surveillance (AS).Material and methods: Data of 354 low-risk PCa patients who underwent RARP were retrospectivelyevaluated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients were divided into two groups: PSA fluctuation rate 9.5%/month (Group 2, n=162).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In multivariate analysis, digital rectal examination positivity, the presence of twopositive cores and low PSA fluctuation rate were found to be significant predictors of GS upgrading.Conclusion: Low PSA fluctuation rate is associated with higher GS upgrading.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: To evaluate the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) fluctuation on Gleason score (GS) upgrading, disease upstaging, oncological outcomes in low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients who underwentrobot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) and met the inclusion criteria for active surveillance (AS).Material and methods: Data of 354 low-risk PCa patients who underwent RARP were retrospectivelyevaluated. Patients were divided into two groups: PSA fluctuation rate 9.5%/month (Group 2, n=162). Mainly compared parameters were GS upgrading, disease upstaging, biochemical recurrence (BCR) and surgical margin positivity (SMP) rates.Results: GS upgrading, disease upstaging and SMP were detected in 128 (36.2%), 56 (15.8%) and 42 (11.9%)patients, respectively. After a median follow-up of 46 months, BCR was observed in 40 (11.3%) patients.GS upgrading (41.1% vs. 30.2%, p=0.033), disease upstaging (19.8% vs. 11.1%, p=0.028), SMP (15.1% vs.8%, p=0.035) and BCR development (15.6% vs. 6.2%, p=0.005) rates were statistically significantly higherin Group 1 than Group 2. In multivariate analysis, digital rectal examination positivity, the presence of twopositive cores and low PSA fluctuation rate were found to be significant predictors of GS upgrading.Conclusion: Low PSA fluctuation rate is associated with higher GS upgrading.

🔖

Cite This Article

HAMİDİ, N., ATMACA, A. F., Canda, A. E., KESKE, M., ARDIÇOĞLU, A. (2019). Does extent of prostate-specific antigen fluctuation can predict Gleason score upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients?. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1, 42–48. https://ajindex.com/articles/379575

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015
  2. [CrossRef] 2. DʼAmico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 1998
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Brendler CB. Radical prostatectomy for impalpable prostate cancer: The Johns Hopkins experience with tumors found on transurethral resection (stages T1A and T1B) and on needle biopsy (stage T1C). J Urol 1994
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Conti SL, Dall’era M, Fradet V, Cowan JE, Simko J, Carroll PR. Pathological outcomes of candidates for active surveillance of prostate cancer. J Urol 2009
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Weiner AB, Patel SG, Eggener SE. Pathologic outcomes for lowrisk prostate cancer after delayed radical prostatectomy in the United States. Urol Oncol 2015
  6. e11-17. 6. Boorjian SA, Karnes RJ, Crispen PL, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Sebo TJ, et al. The impact of discordance between biopsy and pathological Gleason scores on survival after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009
  7. [CrossRef] 7. Davies JD, Aghazadeh MA, Phillips S, Salem S, Chang SS, Clark PE, et al. Prostate Size as a Predictor of Gleason Score Upgrading in Patients with Low Risk Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2011
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Magheli A, Hinz S, Hege C, Stephan C, Jung K, Miller K, et al. Prostate Specific Antigen Density to Predict Prostate Cancer Upgrading in a Contemporary Radical Prostatectomy Series: A Single Center Experience. J Urol 2010
  9. [CrossRef] 9. Truong M, Slezak JA, Lin CP, Iremashvili V, Sado M, Razmaria AA, et al. Development and Multi-Institutional Validation of an Upgrading Risk Tool for Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer. Cancer 2013
  10. [CrossRef] 10. Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 2012
  11. [CrossRef] 11. Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Currlin E, Walz J, Schlomm T, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between bio