Prostate Volume and Its Correlation with Histopathological Outcomes in Prostate Cancer

Introduction: There is a paucity of data investigating the relationship between histopathological variables of oncologic importance and prostate volume, and we aimed to investigate this. Patients and Methods: 2,207 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy were studied. Preoperative demographic and both pre- and postoperative histopathological parameters were compared among the small (<40 cm3), intermediate (40–70 cm3), and large (>70 cm3) prostate groups. Results: Patients with smaller prostates were younger, had slightly lower BMIs, and lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels than those with larger prostates (p < 0.001). They also had worse histopathological criteria (Gleason, core positivity, and maximum percent cancer) on preoperative biopsy and had worse radical specimen Gleason sums (p < 0.001), percent cancer (p < 0.001), and pathological stage (p = 0.016). 11.5% of the men in the small prostate group suffered a positive surgical margin (PSM) compared to 8.3 and 5.6% in the intermediate and large prostate groups, respectively (p = 0.008). Basilar, posterolateral, and multifocal PSMs were commoner in the small prostate group. Conclusions: Younger men have smaller prostates and worse preoperative histopathological parameters despite lower PSA values. Men with small prostates undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy have worse final Gleason sums, tumour volume, extraprostatic extension, and PSM rates than those with larger prostates.

[1]  H. Lepor,et al.  Is the apical soft tissue margin a better predictor of biochemical recurrence than the surgical specimen? , 2011, Urologic oncology.

[2]  James D Brooks,et al.  Comparison of prostate cancer tumor volume and percent cancer in prediction of biochemical recurrence and cancer specific survival. , 2011, Urologic oncology.

[3]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Location and number of positive surgical margins as prognostic factors of biochemical recurrence after salvage radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy , 2010, BJU international.

[4]  Choung-Soo Kim,et al.  Effect of prostate size on pathological outcome and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: is it correlated with serum testosterone level? , 2010, BJU international.

[5]  J. Moul,et al.  Tumor percent involvement predicts prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy only in men with smaller prostate. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[6]  H. Lepor,et al.  Site of positive surgical margins influences biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy , 2009, BJU international.

[7]  S. Sonnad,et al.  Defining pathological variables to predict biochemical failure in patients with positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy: implications for adjuvant radiotherapy , 2009, BJU international.

[8]  A. Tewari,et al.  Prostate volume and the incidence of extraprostatic extension: is there a relation? , 2009, Journal of endourology.

[9]  Michel Bolla,et al.  [EAU guidelines on prostate cancer]. , 2009, Actas urologicas espanolas.

[10]  A. Haese*,et al.  Contemporary prostate cancer prevalence among T1c biopsy-referred men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or = 4.0 ng per milliliter. , 2008, European urology.

[11]  H. Lepor,et al.  IS THE APICAL SOFT TISSUE MARGIN (ASTM) A BETTER PREDICTOR OF BIOCHEMICAL RECURRENCE (BR) THAN THE SURGICAL SPECIMEN MARGIN , 2008 .

[12]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer Statistics, 2006 , 2006, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[13]  M. Kattan,et al.  Prognostic impact of positive surgical margins in surgically treated prostate cancer: multi-institutional assessment of 5831 patients. , 2005, Urology.

[14]  M. Terris,et al.  Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  R. Kirby,et al.  A large prostate at radical retropubic prostatectomy does not adversely affect cancer control, continence or potency rates , 2003, BJU international.

[16]  M Bolla,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. , 2001, European urology.

[17]  P. Humphrey,et al.  Visual estimate of the percentage of carcinoma is an independent predictor of prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy , 2000, Cancer.

[18]  A. D'Amico,et al.  A prostate gland volume of more than 75 cm3 predicts for a favorable outcome after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. , 1999, Urology.

[19]  M. Kattan,et al.  Prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[20]  T. Wheeler,et al.  Prostate specific antigen and gleason grade: an immunohistochemical study of prostate cancer. , 1994, The Journal of urology.

[21]  V. Laudone,et al.  Predicting biochemical recurrence-free survival for patients with positive pelvic lymph nodes at radical prostatectomy. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[22]  G. Andriole,et al.  Prognostic Impact of Positive Surgical Margins in Surgically Treated Prostate Cancer: Multi-institutional Assessment of 5831 Patients , 2006 .