Dergiler / Acta Medica Anatolia / 2016 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3

Relationship between Prostate Size and Positive Surgical Margin in the Open Radical Prostatectomy Surgery

Sayfa
107–111
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Furthermore, evaluation of the prostate volume can be used as a prognostic factor for prostate cancer.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Introduction: Our study aims to reveal the correlation between positive surgical margins and prostate volume, thus determining a cutoff value for the prostate volume to predict PCM in patients with open radical prostatectomy.Methodology: In our study, a number of 450 patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy surgery at 2 centers within the last 5 years was evaluated.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Evaluated all these parameters, 170 consecutive patients of whom data were available were included in the studyResults: Stage T3 and PSA>10 ng/dL were statistically significant for positive surgical margins (p=0,002 and p<0,001, respectively).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Furthermore, evaluation of the prostate volume can be used as a prognostic factor for prostate cancer.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Introduction: Our study aims to reveal the correlation between positive surgical margins and prostate volume, thus determining a cutoff value for the prostate volume to predict PCM in patients with open radical prostatectomy.Methodology: In our study, a number of 450 patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy surgery at 2 centers within the last 5 years was evaluated. Age, total PSA, number of positive cores for prostate cancer, Gleason score, transfusion amount and prostate volume were all evaluated in the study. Evaluated all these parameters, 170 consecutive patients of whom data were available were included in the studyResults: Stage T3 and PSA>10 ng/dL were statistically significant for positive surgical margins (p=0,002 and p<0,001, respectively). The number of positive cores and Gleason score from these biopsies was also statistically higher in those with positive surgical margins (p=0,002 and p<0,001, respectively). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the risk for PCM was found to be 2.67 times higher in patients with PSA>10 ng/dL (95% CI: 1.18 to 6.04; p = 0.018) and stage T3 increased the risk for PCM by 8.51 times (95% CI: 3.54 to 20.51, p = <0.001). When we performed AUROC analysis to determine the positivity of surgical margin in terms of prostate volume, we achieved a cutoff value of 34.5 with 55% sensitivity and 71% specificity (AUC: 0.646, 95% CI: 0.555 to 0.737, p = 0.002). Again, any value above 34.5 cc was found to statistically significantly increase the risk for PCM by 2.86 times (95% CI: 1.31 to 6.28; p = 0.009).Conclusion: We found that the prostate volume had an important role in positivity of surgical margins. It is likely that addition of prostate volume as well to nomograms used before surgery may be useful in improving of risk assessment in prostate cancer. Furthermore, evaluation of the prostate volume can be used as a prognostic factor for prostate cancer.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ÖZYALVAÇLI, M. E., KOCAASLAN, R., YÜCETAŞ, U., ERKAN, E., ŞAHİN, A. F., KADIHASANOĞLU, M., ŞAHİN, Y., ÜNLÜER, E. (2016). Relationship between Prostate Size and Positive Surgical Margin in the Open Radical Prostatectomy Surgery. Acta Medica Anatolia, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3, 107–111. https://ajindex.com/articles/142626

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Hsu EI, Hong EK, Lepor H. Influence of body weight and prostate volume on intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology. 2003 Mar;61(3):601-606.
  2. 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 Oct 20;23(30):7546 Foley CL, Bott SR, Thomas K, Parkinson MC, Kirby RS. A large prostate at radical retropubic prostatectomy does not adversely affect cancer control, continence or potency rates. BJU Int. 2003 Sep;92(4):370-374.
  3. Kassouf W, Nakanishi H, Ochiai A, Babaian KN, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Effect of prostate volume on tumor grade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy in the era of extended prostatic biopsies. J Urol. 2007 Jul;178(1):111-114.
  4. Chang CM, Moon D, Gianduzzo TR, Eden CG. The impact of prostate size in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2005 Aug;48(2):285-290.
  5. Singh A, Fagin R, Shah G, Shekarriz B. Impact of prostate size and body mass index on perioperative morbidity after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005 Feb;173(2):552-554.
  6. El-Feel A, Davis JW, Deger S, Roigas J, Wille AH, Schnorr D, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy--an analysis of factors affecting operating time. Urology. Aug;62(2):314-318.
  7. Zorn KC, Orvieto MA, Mikhail AA, Gofrit ON, Lin S, Schaeffer AJ, et al. Effect of prostate weight on operative and postoperative outcomes of robotic- assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007 Feb;69(2):300-305.
  8. Boczko J, Erturk E, Golijanin D, Madeb R, Patel H, Joseph JV. Impact of prostate size in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2007 Feb;21(2):184-188.
  9. Saranchuk JW, Kattan MW, Elkin E, Touijer AK, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Achieving optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun;23(18):4146-4151.
  10. Billis A, Watanabe IC, Costa MV, Telles GH, Magna LA. Iatrogenic and non-iatrogenic positive margins: incidence, site, factors involved, and time to PSA progression following radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(1):105-111.
  11. Brimo F, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Tumor grade at margins of resection in radical prostatectomy specimens is an independent predictor of prognosis. Urology. 2010 Nov;76(5):1206-1209.
  12. Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY, Yoshida JS, Crocitto LE, Kawachi MH, et al. The impact of prostate gland weight in r