Korean J Urol.  2012 Jul;53(7):463-466. 10.4111/kju.2012.53.7.463.

Impact of Prostate Size on Pathologic Outcomes and Prognosis after Radical Prostatectomy

• Min SH
• Park YH
• Lee SB
• Ku JH
• Kwak C
• Kim HH

• KMID: 1988756
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2012.53.7.463

Abstract

PURPOSE
We investigated prostate size and its correlation with final pathologic outcomes and prognosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
From 1993 to 2009, 830 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with follow-up duration of 12 months or more were included in this study. Patients were categorized according to prostate size as follows: group 1, prostate size < or =40 g (n=458), and group 2, prostate size >40 g (n=472). Preoperative parameters and postoperative pathologic outcomes were compared between groups. Multivariate analysis with Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify the pathologic and clinical factors affecting biochemical recurrence.
RESULTS
Patients in group 1 had higher pathologic T stage (pT2a=17.7% vs. 23.9%, pT2b=1.1% vs. 0%, pT2c=40.4% vs. 39.8%, pT3a=29.5% vs. 21.0%, pT3b=10.7% vs. 13.2%, p=0.003) and higher positive surgical margin (40.3% vs. 33.1%, p=0.033) than did patients in group 2. Pathologic Gleason score was not significantly different between the two groups. The 5-year biochemical-recurrence-free survival was 62.3% for patients in group 1 and 73.2% for patients in group 2 (p=0.005). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that prostate size of 40 g or less (hazard ratio [HR], 1.378; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.027 to 1.848; p=0.032), extracapsular extension (HR, 1.592; 95% CI, 1.147 to 2.209; p=0.005), positive surgical margin (HR, 2.348; 95% CI, 1.701 to 3.242; p<0.001), and pathologic Gleason sum (HR, 1.507; 95% CI, 1.292 to 1.758; p<0.001) were independent predictors of biochemical recurrence.
CONCLUSIONS
Smaller prostate size was associated with increased risk of higher pT stage and positive surgical margin after radical prostatectomy. Also, prostate size less than 40 g was an independent prognostic factor for biochemical recurrence.

Keyword

Prognosis; Prostate; Prostatectomy

MeSH Terms

Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Multivariate Analysis
Neoplasm Grading
Prognosis
Prostate
Prostatectomy
Recurrence

Figure

• 

  FIG. 1 Biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival according to prostate size.

Reference

1. Kattan MW, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999. 17:1499–1507.

2. Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA, Bianco FJ Jr, Dotan ZA, Fearn PA, et al. Preoperative nomogram predicting the 10-year probability of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006. 98:715–717.

3. Feneley MR, Landis P, Simon I, Metter EJ, Morrell CH, Carter HB, et al. Today men with prostate cancer have larger prostates. Urology. 2000. 56:839–842.

4. Schroeck FR, Sun L, Freedland SJ, Jayachandran J, Robertson CN, Moul JW. Race and prostate weight as independent predictors for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2008. 11:371–376.

5. Uhlman MA, Sun L, Stackhouse DA, Caire AA, Polascik TJ, Robertson CN, et al. Tumor volume, tumor percentage involvement, or prostate volume: which is predictive of prostate-specific antigen recurrence? Urology. 2010. 75:460–466.

6. 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. 92:370–374.

7. Davidson DD, Koch MO, Lin H, Jones TD, Biermann K, Cheng L. Does the size matter? Prostate weight does not predict PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010. 133:662–668.

8. Gleason DF. Histologic grade, clinical stage, and patient age in prostate cancer. NCI Monogr. 1988. (7):15–18.

9. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz AG, Balch CM, Haller DG, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 2002. 6th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.

10. Chen ME, Johnston D, Reyes AO, Soto CP, Babaian RJ, Troncoso P. A streamlined three-dimensional volume estimation method accurately classifies prostate tumors by volume. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003. 27:1291–1301.

11. Briganti A, Chun FK, Suardi N, Gallina A, Walz J, Graefen M, et al. Prostate volume and adverse prostate cancer features: fact not artifact. Eur J Cancer. 2007. 43:2669–2677.

12. 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. 23:7546–7554.

13. Walsh PC, Madden JD, Harrod MJ, Goldstein JL, MacDonald PC, Wilson JD. Familial incomplete male pseudohermaphroditism, type 2. Decreased dihydrotestosterone formation in pseudovaginal perineoscrotal hypospadias. N Engl J Med. 1974. 291:944–949.

14. Coffey DS, Walsh PC. Clinical and experimental studies of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Clin North Am. 1990. 17:461–475.

15. Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Miller GJ, Ford LG, et al. The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003. 349:215–224.

16. Chodak GW, Vogelzang NJ, Caplan RJ, Soloway M, Smith JA. The Zoladex Study Group. Independent prognostic factors in patients with metastatic (stage D2) prostate cancer. JAMA. 1991. 265:618–621.

17. Ribeiro M, Ruff P, Falkson G. Low serum testosterone and a younger age predict for a poor outcome in metastatic prostate cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 1997. 20:605–608.

18. Chen SS, Chen KK, Lin AT, Chang YH, Wu HH, Chang LS. The correlation between pretreatment serum hormone levels and treatment outcome for patients with prostatic cancer and bony metastasis. BJU Int. 2002. 89:710–713.

19. Iversen P, Rasmussen F, Christensen IJ. Serum testosterone as a prognostic factor in patients with advanced prostatic carcinoma. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 1994. 157:41–47.

20. Luo J, Duggan DJ, Chen Y, Sauvageot J, Ewing CM, Bittner ML, et al. Human prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia: molecular dissection by gene expression profiling. Cancer Res. 2001. 61:4683–4688.

21. Stamey TA, Warrington JA, Caldwell MC, Chen Z, Fan Z, Mahadevappa M, et al. Molecular genetic profiling of Gleason grade 4/5 prostate cancers compared to benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2001. 166:2171–2177.

22. Msezane LP, Gofrit ON, Lin S, Shalhav AL, Zagaja GP, Zorn KC. Prostate weight: an independent predictor for positive surgical margins during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2007. 14:3697–3701.

23. Hong SK, Yu JH, Han BK, Chang IH, Jeong SJ, Byun SS, et al. Association of prostate size and tumor grade in Korean men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology. 2007. 70:91–95.