Urology
Volume 75, Issue 2 , Pages 460-466 , February 2010

Tumor Volume, Tumor Percentage Involvement, or Prostate Volume: Which Is Predictive of Prostate-specific Antigen Recurrence?

Received 17 April 2009 ,Accepted 25 June 2009.

References 

  1. Nelson BA, Shappell SB, Chang SS, et al. Tumour volume is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2006;97:1169–1172
  2. Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM, et al. Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;281:1395–1400
  3. Chun FK, Briganti A, Jeldres C, et al. Tumour volume and high grade tumour volume are the best predictors of pathologic stage and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:536–543
  4. Vollmer RT. Percentage of tumor in prostatectomy specimens: a study of American veterans. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131:86–91
  5. Kikuchi E, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM, et al. Is tumor volume an independent prognostic factor in clinically localized prostate cancer?. J Urol. 2004;172:508–511
  6. May M, Siegsmund M, Hammermann F, et al. Visual estimation of the tumor volume in prostate cancer: a useful means for predicting biochemical-free survival after radical prostatectomy?. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2007;10:66–71
  7. Merrill MM, Lane BR, Reuther AM, et al. Tumor volume does not predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with surgical Gleason score 6 or less prostate cancer. Urology. 2007;70:294–298
  8. Carvalhal GF, Humphrey PA, Thorson P, et al. Visual estimate of the percentage of carcinoma is an independent predictor of prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2000;89:1308–1314
  9. Ramos CG, Roehl KA, Antenor JA, et al. Percent carcinoma in prostatectomy specimen is associated with risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with pathologically organ confined prostate cancer. J Urol. 2004;172:137–140
  10. Rampersaud EN, Sun L, Moul JW, et al. Percent tumor involvement and risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;180:571–576discussion:576
  11. Epstein JI, Carmichael M, Partin AW, et al. Is tumor volume an independent predictor of progression following radical prostatectomy? (A multivariate analysis of 185 clinical stage B adenocarcinomas of the prostate with 5 years of follow up). J Urol. 1993;149:1478–1481
  12. Schroeck FR, Sun L, Freedland SJ, et al. Race and prostate weight as independent predictors for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2008;11:371–376
  13. Stamey TA, Yemoto CM, McNeal JE, et al. Prostate cancer is highly predictable: a prognostic equation based on all morphological variables in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2000;163:1155–1160
  14. Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, 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;23:7546–7554
  15. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. A prostate gland volume of more than 75 cm3 predicts for a favorable outcome after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Urology. 1998;52:631–636
  16. Foley CL, Bott SR, Thomas K, et al. A large prostate at radical retropubic prostatectomy does not adversely affect cancer control, continence or potency rates. BJU Int. 2003;92:370–374
  17. Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, et al. Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol. 2007;177:540–545
  18. Zeng J, Bauer J, Yao X, et al. Building an accurate 3D map of prostate cancer using computerized models of 280 whole-mounted radical prostatectomy specimens. Proceedings of the SPIE Medical Imaging Conference. 2000;3976:466–477
  19. True LD. Surgical pathology examination of the prostate gland (Practice survey by American Society of Clinical Pathologists). Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;102:572–579
  20. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, et al. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:766–771
  21. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, et al. Postoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7005–7012
  22. Massengill JC, Sun L, Moul JW, et al. Pretreatment total testosterone level predicts pathological stage in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003;169:1670–1675
  23. Yadav R, Tu JJ, Jhaveri J, et al. Prostate volume and the incidence of extraprostatic extension: is there a relation?. J Endourol. 2009;23:383–386
  24. Descazeaud A, Zerbib M, Vieillefond A, et al. (The low weight of the prostate is an independent risk factor for positive surgical margins on radical prostatectomy specimens). Prog Urol. 2007;17:203–207
  25. Tanagho EA, McAninch JW. Smith's General Urology. In: New York: Lange Medical/McGraw-Hill; 2004;p. 758
  26. Wein A, Kavoussi L, Novick A, et al. In: Campbell-Walsh Urology. vol 3:Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2007;
  27. Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, Graefen M, et al. Comparative assessment of the 1992 and 2002 pathologic T3 substages for the prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2006;106:775–782
  28. Suardi N, Porter CR, Reuther AM, et al. A nomogram predicting long-term biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer. 2008;112:1254–1263
  29. Efstathiou JA, Chen MH, Catalona WJ, et al. Prostate-specific antigen-based serial screening may decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality. Urology. 2006;68:342–347
  30. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1320–1328

 This study was supported by NIH Grant TL1 RR 024126.

PII: S0090-4295(09)00938-8

doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.06.059

Urology
Volume 75, Issue 2 , Pages 460-466 , February 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution