국소 전립선암에서 종양용적 및 종양용적 비율의 예후적 가치 = Prognostic Significance of the Tumor Volume and Tumor Percentage for Localized Prostate Cancer

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Purpose: Tumor volume has been thought to be an important predictive factor for significant prostate cancer. We assessed the impact of the tumor volume(TV) and the tumor percentage(TP) of radical prostatectomy specimens on the pathological variables and the oncological outcome.
Materials and Methods: The tumor percentage and tumor volume were calculated for 525 cases by a single pathologist who determined the volume based on the surface area of the slides involved by tumor of the prostate. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to characterize the association of TP categories(＜5%, 5-10%, 11-20% and ＞20%) and TV(＜1.8cc, 1.8-3.7cc, 3.8-7.5cc, ＞7.5cc) with the clinicopathological variables. Biochemical recurrence(BCR) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox’s hazard regression model.
Results: The mean prostate cancer volume was 6.5±8.5cc(median: 3.8, range: 0.04-73.8) and the mean percent tumor composition was 0.17±0.19 (median: 0.1, range: 0.01-0.95). A higher tumor volume and a higher tumor percentage were associated with extra-capsular extension(ECE), a positive surgical margin(PSM), a higher pT stage and a higher prostate-specific antigen(PSA) Gleason score(all p＜0.05). In addition, TP was the independent predictor of ECE(adjusted odds ratio(OR): 22.66, 95% confidence interval(CI): 1.801-285.079, p=0.016), but the tumor volume was not associated with ECE on the multivariate logistic analyses. On the Kaplan-Meier analysis, but not on the Cox-hazard analyses, the TP did demonstrate a significant association with biochemical recurrence(p=0.035), yet the TV did not reach statistical significance(p=0.190).
Conclusions: Our data indicates that the tumor percentage had a significant effect on the BCR on the Kaplan-Meier analysis. The tumor percentage rather than the tumor volume might be more useful to predict the prognosis of prostate cancer.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Purpose: Tumor volume has been thought to be an important predictive factor for significant prostate cancer. We assessed the impact of the tumor volume(TV) and the tumor percentage(TP) of radical prostatectomy specimens on the pathological variables and the oncological outcome.
Materials and Methods: The tumor percentage and tumor volume were calculated for 525 cases by a single pathologist who determined the volume based on the surface area of the slides involved by tumor of the prostate. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to characterize the association of TP categories(＜5%, 5-10%, 11-20% and ＞20%) and TV(＜1.8cc, 1.8-3.7cc, 3.8-7.5cc, ＞7.5cc) with the clinicopathological variables. Biochemical recurrence(BCR) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox’s hazard regression model.
Results: The mean prostate cancer volume was 6.5±8.5cc(median: 3.8, range: 0.04-73.8) and the mean percent tumor composition was 0.17±0.19 (median: 0.1, range: 0.01-0.95). A higher tumor volume and a higher tumor percentage were associated with extra-capsular extension(ECE), a positive surgical margin(PSM), a higher pT stage and a higher prostate-specific antigen(PSA) Gleason score(all p＜0.05). In addition, TP was the independent predictor of ECE(adjusted odds ratio(OR): 22.66, 95% confidence interval(CI): 1.801-285.079, p=0.016), but the tumor volume was not associated with ECE on the multivariate logistic analyses. On the Kaplan-Meier analysis, but not on the Cox-hazard analyses, the TP did demonstrate a significant association with biochemical recurrence(p=0.035), yet the TV did not reach statistical significance(p=0.190).
Conclusions: Our data indicates that the tumor percentage had a significant effect on the BCR on the Kaplan-Meier analysis. The tumor percentage rather than the tumor volume might be more useful to predict the prognosis of prostate cancer.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Zincke H, "prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: long-term results of 1,143 patients from a single institution" 2254-63, 1994

2 Merrill MM, "Tumor volume does not predict for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in patients with surgical Gleason score 6 or less prostate cancer" 70 : 294-8, 2007

3 Freedland SJ, "The prostatic specific antigen era is alive and well: prostatic specific antigen and biochemical progression following radical prostatectomy" 174 : 1276-81, 2005

4 Kupelian PA, "Stage T1-2 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of factors affecting biochemical and clinical failures after radical prostatectomy" 37 : 1043-52, 1997

5 Freedland SJ, "Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study" 23 : 7546-54, 2005

6 Salomon L, "Prognostic significance of tumor volume after radical prostatectomy: a multivariate analysis of pathological prognostic factors" 43 : 39-44, 2003

7 Ohori M, "Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens" 154 : 1818-24, 1995

8 D’Amico AV, "Pretreatment predictors of time to cancer specific death after prostate specific antigen failure" 169 : 1320-4, 2003

9 Rampersaud EN, "Percent tumor involvement and risk of biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy" 180 : 571-6, 2008

10 McNeal JE, "Patterns of progression in prostate cancer" 1 : 60-3, 1986

11 McNeal JE, "Origin and development of carcinoma in the prostate" 23 : 24-34, 1969

12 Guzzo TJ, "Minimal tumor volume may provide additional prognostic information in good performance patients after radical prostatectomy" 69 : 1147-51, 2007

13 Carver BS, "Longterm outcome following radical prostatectomy in men with clinical stage T3 prostate cancer" 176 : 564-8, 2006

14 Kikuchi E, "Is tumor volume an independent prognostic factor in clinically localized prostate cancer?" 172 : 508-11, 2004

15 Epstein JI, "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" 149 : 1478-81, 1993

16 Ross PL, "Comparisons of nomograms and urologists' predictions in prostate cancer" 20 : 82-8, 2002

17 Lee KR, "Clinical significance of calculated prostate cancer volume as the predictor of pathologic stage" 42 : 821-7, 2001

18 Bastian PJ, "Clinical and pathologic outcome after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer patients with a preoperative Gleason sum of 8 to 10" 107 : 1265-72, 2006

19 McNeal JE, "Capsular penetration in prostate cancer. Significance for natural history and treatment" 14 : 240-7, 1990

20 Walsh PC, "Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years" 152 : 1831-6, 1994

21 Stamey TA, "Biological determinants of cancer progression in men with prostate cancer" 281 : 1395-400, 1999

22 Noguchi M, "Assessment of morphometric measurements of prostate carcinoma volume" 89 : 1056-64, 2000

23 Chun FK, "Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomylong-term recurrence-free survival rates for localized prostate cancer" 24 : 273-80, 2006