Radical prostatectomy for high risk localized prostate cancer. Prognosis and study of influential variables
Keywords:
Cáncer de próstata. Ki- 67. Prostatectomía radical. Alto riesgo. D´Amico. Márgenes quirúrgicos.Abstract
Background. To study the biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) achieved by a group of high risk patients in accordance with D’Amico’s classification treated with radical prostatectomy. To identify the clinical-pathological variables which are influential in biochemical progression-free survival and, if possible, use them to design a prognostic model. Material and methods. The study involves 232 patients, out of a series of 1,054, diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer, qualified as high risk on D’Amico’s classification (PSA>20 ng/ml or Gleason score 8-10 or T3) treated with radical prostatectomy. The BPFS is studied and the clinical-pathological variables obtained (PSA, Gleason score of the biopsy and of the piece, clinical and pathological study, unilateral or bilateral affectation, margins of the prostatectomy piece, Ki-67 expression) are analyzed to identify whether they influenced the BPFS. Contingency tables and tables for survival analysis: Kaplan-Meyer, log-rank and Cox models were used for the statistical study. Results. Descriptive study: PSA: 23.3 ng/ml (median); cGleason 2-6: 33%; 7: 13%; 8-10: 54%; T2: 58%; Bilateral affectation in the diagnostic biopsy: 59%; RNM T2: 60%; RNM T3: 40%. pGleason 2-6: 24%; 7: 28%; 8-10: 48%; pT2: 43%; pT3a: 30%; pT3b: 27%; Affected margin: 51%; N1:13%. Progression-free survival: with a mean and median follow-up of 64 months; 53% show biochemical progression. The median until progression: 42 months. Progression-free survival at 5 and 10 years is 43±3% and 26±7%. The multivariate study (Cox models) shows that the variables that are independently influential in the BPFS are the affectation of margins (HR: 3.5; 95% IC.1.9-6.7; p<0001); and Ki67 >10% (HR: 2.3; 95% IC: 1.2-4.3; P: 0.009). Risk groups: using the two influential variables and employing Cox models, three risk groups emerged as the best model: Group 1 (0 variables present); Group 2 (1 variable); Group 3 (2 variables). The progression-free survival is 69±8%; 27±6% and 18±11% at 5 years. The differences amongst the three groups are significant. Conclusion. The high risk group according to the D’Amico classification is heterogeneous in relation to biochemical progression and can be broken down into three risk groups using the two independently influential variables (affected margins and Ki67 percentage).Downloads
References
1. COOPERBERG MR, LUBECK DP, MEHTA SS, CARROLL PR. Time trends in clinical risk stratification for prostate cancer: implications for outcomes (data from CaPSURE). J Urol 2003; 170: S21-25.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000095025.03331.c6
2. YOSSEPOWITCH O, EGGENER SE, BIANCO FJ JR, CARVER BS, SERIO A, SCARDINO PT et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high risk prostate cancer: critical analysis of risk assesment methods. J Urol 2007; 178: 493-499.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.105
3. NGUYEN CT, REUTHER AM, STEPHENSON AJ, KLEIN EA, JONES JS. The specific definition of high risk prostate cancer has minimal impact on biochemical relapse- free survival. J Urol 2009; 181: 75-80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.09.027
4. D'AMICO AV, WHITTINGTON R, MALKOWICZ SB, SCHULTZ D, BLANK K, BRODERICK GA et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or intersticial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969-974.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.969
5. BILL- AXELSON A, HOLMBERG L, RUUTU M, HÄGGMAN M, ANDERSSON SO, BRATELL S et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005: 352: 1977-1984.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa043739
6. ZUDAIRE BERGERA JJ, SÁNCHEZ ZALABARDO D, AROCENA GARCÍA-TAPIA J, SANZ PÉREZ G, DÍEZ CABALLERO F, LÓPEZ FERRANDIS J et al. Expresión de p53 y Ki67 en piezas de prostatectomía radical. Relación con los datos clínico-patológicos y supervivencia. Actas Urol Esp 2000; 24:307-313.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0210-4806(00)72453-3
7. TRUE LD. Surgical pathology examination for the prostate gland: practice survey by the American Society of Clinical Pathologist. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;102:572-579.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/102.5.572
8. AMLING CL, BERGSTRALH EJ, BLUTE ML, SLEZAK JM, ZINCKE H. Defining prostate specific antigen progression after radical prostatectomy: what is the most appropiate cut point? J Urol 2001;165:1146-1151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66452-X
9. BOORJIAN SA, KARNES RJ, RANGEL LJ, BERGSTRALH EJ, BLUTE ML. Mayo Clinic validation of the D'Amico risk group classification for predicting survival following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2008; 179:1354-1360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.061
10. KUPELIAN PA, ELSHAIKH M, REDDY CA, ZIPPE C, KLEIN EA. Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies for localized prostate cancer in the prostate- specific antigen era: a large single- institution experience with radical prostatectomy and external- beam radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 3376-3385.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.01.150
11. LOEB S, SMITH ND, ROEHL KA, CATALONA WJ. Intermediate- term potency, continence, and survival outcomes of radical prostatectomy for clinically highrisk or locally advanced prostate cancer. Urology 2007; 69:1170-1175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.02.054
12. ZELEFSKY MJ, EASTHAM JA, CRONIN AM, FUKS ZVI, ZHANG Z, YAMADA Y, VICKERS A et al. Metastasis after radical prostatectomy or external beamradiotherapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer: a comparison of clinical cohorts adjusted for case mix. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1508- 1513.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.22.2265
13. ALBERTSEN PC, HANLEY JA, PENSON DF, BARROWS G, FINE J. 13-year outcome following treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer in a population based cohort. J Urol 2007:177: 932-936.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.051
14. TEWARI A, DIVINE G, CHANG P, SHEMTOV MM, MILOWSKY M, NANUS D et al. Long- term survival in men with high grade prostate cancer: a comparison between conservative treatment , radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy- a propensity scoring approach. J Urol 2007: 177: 911-915.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.040
15. MENG MV, ELKIN EP, LATINI DM, DUCHANE J, CARROLL PR. Treatment of patients with high risk localized prostate cancer: results from cancer of the prostate strategic urological research endeavor(CaPSURE). J Urol 2005; 173: 1557-1561.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000154610.81916.81
16. GRUBB RL, KIBEL AS. High- risk localized prostate cáncer: role of radical prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol 2010; 20:241-246.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e3283384101
17. KANE CJ, PRESTI JC JR, AMLING CL, ARONSON WJ, TERRIS MK, FREEDLAND SJ; SEARCH Database Study Group. Changing nature of high risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;177:113-117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.057
18. STEPHENSON AJ, KATTAN MW, EASTHAM JA, BIANCO FJ JR, YOSSEPOWITCH O, VICKERS AJ et al. Prostate cancer- specific mortality after radical prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4300-4305.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.18.2501
19. GODOY G, TAREEN BU, LEPOR H. Site of positive surgical margins influences biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2009; 104: 1610-1614.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08688.x
20. ALKHATEEB S, ALIBHAI S, FLESHNER N, FINELLI A, JEWETT M, ZLOTTA A et al. Impact of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy differs by disease risk group. J Urol 2010; 183:145-150.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.132
21. RUBIO-BRIONES J, IBORRA I, TRASSIERRA M, COLLADO A, CASANOVA J, GÓMEZ-FERRER A et al. Progresión metastásica, mortalidad cáncer especifíca y necesidad de tratamientos de segunda línea en pacientes con cáncer de próstata de alto riesgo tratados inicialmente mediante prostatectomía radical. Actas Urol Esp 2010; 34: 610-617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2010.03.029
22. OJEA CA, MOSTEIRO CERVINO MJ, DOMINGUEZ FF, ALONSO RA, RODRÍGUEZ IB, BENAVENTE DJ et al. The usefulness of Ki67 expression in the biopsy specimens, to predict the biochemical progression of the prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Actas Urol Esp 2004; 28: 650- 660.
23. FENELEY MR, YOUNG MP, CHINYAMA C, KIRBY RS, PARKINSON MC. Ki-67 expression in early prostate cancer and associated pathological lesions. J Clin Pathol 1996; 49: 741-748.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.49.9.741
24. NILSSON S, NORDGREN H, KARLBERG L, HARVING B, BUSCH C, HALL T et al. Expresion of estramustine-binding protein (EMBP) and the proliferation associated antigen Ki-67 in prostatic carcinomas. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1998; 110: 31-37.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2012 Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
La revista Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra es publicada por el Departamento de Salud del Gobierno de Navarra (España), quien conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright ) sobre el artículo publicado y favorece y permite la difusión del mismo bajo licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-SA 4.0). Esta licencia permite copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente el artículo, siempre que siempre que se cite la autoría y la publicación inicial en Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra, y se distinga la existencia de esta licencia de uso.
